Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN (TAFF CROSSING) BILL
(By Order)

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL (By
Order)

BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 17 April.

MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [18 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 17 April.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 17 April.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Conservation

Mr. Cohen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he proposes to revise the guidelines given to his staff engaged in conservation duties, in the light of the proposals contained in the Agriculture Bill; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): Assuming that the agriculture Bill passes into law, I shall draw its provisions to the attention of all staff and issue guidance on their implementation.

Mr. Cohen: The Agriculture Bill imposes conservation responsibilities which are to be welcomed, especially on the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, yet the Minister is cutting the staff that will fulfil those statutory responsibilities. Does that not show that he is paying only lip service to conservation and that he has no realistic commitment to it? When will he provide the additional staff necessary?

Mr. Jopling: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the new clause that we moved to the Agriculture Bill, where we have taken on further responsiblities for conservation.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the new clause, which shows the Government's commitment to conservation. Does he agree that, as well as having guidelines, his officials need training in how to secure a balance between conservation and agriculture? What is my right hon. Friend doing to provide that necessary training?

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comment. We are arranging courses. There have been a number over the past few years for ADAS staff so that they can better give advice on conservation matters.

Mr. John: Does the Minister not realise that the House will require some details about exactly how the training will be implemented? Is it merely a token or a factor in the chess game currently taking place with the Department of the Environment, or does the right hon. Gentleman really mean it to be effective? If so, how will he make it so?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has complimented my Department on the steps that we are taking to become more and more interested in conservation matters. It is surprising and disappointing therefore that he should question our good will on those matters. We are determined to further our duties for conservation.

Outgoers Scheme

Mr. Knox: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he hopes to announce the details of the European Economic Community outgoers scheme which the Commission has proposed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jopling: Discussions on the proposals for a Community outgoers scheme are continuing in the Council of Agriculture Ministers.

Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend say what plans he has for tenants at the end of their tenancies?

Mr. Jopling: As my hon. Friend will know, under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 tenants are entitled to compensation in recognition of the value of improvements they have made on the holding. At the same time, it seems reasonable that they should also receive some recognition of the contribution they have made to the milk quota allocated to the holder. There is a later question on the Order Paper on this subject, but I can say that we are tabling an amendment to the Agriculture Bill today to provide for that.

Mr. Livsey: Does the Minister agree that at least a 50–50 split between tenants and landlords as to the allocation of milk quota in the outgoers scheme would be the right move?

Mr. Jopling: It would be a mistake to start talking about percentages in these terms, because circumstances vary enormously from individual to individual. In general, we should leave the detailed discussions on these matters to arbitrators.

Mr. Hicks: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that under the amendment that he tables later today the arbitration process will provide no built-in structural advantage to either the landlord or the tenant?

Mr. Jopling: We have had discussions with the representative bodies, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, on how this form of arbitration might be worked. We have made our proposals on the basis of those discussions.

Mr. Torney: Will the Minister tell the House whether the Commission's discussions on the outgoers scheme covered the workers in the farming, dairy distributive and processing industries? The workers in those industries have been made unemployed and creameries have been shut down. There is a great difference in redundancy payments for people who will probably never get another job because of the Government's policies on employment.

Mr. Jopling: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of redundancy payments for dairy industry workers over a period of time. I have listened to him, but I have to tell him that when the dairy industry was discussed in the Council of Ministers that particular aspect of the matter was not considered

Sir John Farr: Will the amendment which my right hon. Friend will table today contain references to the matters which arbitrators should and should not take into account when they come to their conclusions?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend will see from the amendment that an attempt has been made to give arbitrators the parameters within which they may work.

Mr. Home Robertson: It is deplorable that the redundancy rights of employees in the dairy industry were not discussed in the Council of Ministers. Will the Minister say more about the Government's attitude towards compensation for tenants and the right of tenants to a fair share of the value of their milk quota? Is the right

hon. Gentleman aware that we would oppose any settlement which gave tenants less than 50 per cent. of the value of their quota?

Mr. Jopling: With regard to discussions in the Council of Ministers, although I have many responsibilities, I cannot be responsible—although, at the time, I was temporarily presiding over the Council of Ministers—for what Ministers from other Community countries seek to raise.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman could have raised it.

Mr. Jopling: This was the first and only occasion on which we had discussed the details of the Commission's proposed outgoers scheme, and redundancy rights of dairy workers were not raised in the course of the discussion.
On his second question, the hon. Member should not get too tied into specific figures with regard to this form of compensation. There is a huge range of different situations, all of which must be treated on their individual merits by the arbitrators at the time.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the depth of feeling among west country tenant farmers that the present proposals do not adequately recognise their contribution to farming units? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under his present proposals, the average tenant would receive only about a third of the available compensation? Surely that is inadequate and should not be approved.

Mr. Jopling: We have not yet tabled an amendment, although we shall do so later today. My hon. Friend should think in terms of the burden being put on the ingoing tenant who follows a tenant who received substantial compensation. That is all part of the equation. It is a mistake to attach specific figures, because there will be a wide range of levels of compensation once the arbitrators have done their work.

Beef (Headage Payments)

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what talks he has had with colleagues in Europe with a view to altering proposals to pay only headage payments on a limited number of beef fattening animals.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): At the meeting of the Agriculture Council on 24 and 25 March my right hon. Friend and I made it clear to our colleagues in the rest of Europe that we were opposed to discrimination between producers being introduced into the CAP market support arrangements.

Mr. Howells: I am sure the Minister will agree that the variable premium has served United Kingdom beef producers and consumers well for the past 12 years. Does he agree that it would be better to press for the retention of the present scheme than to go for the alternative headage payments scheme?

Mr. Gummer: We shall certainly continue to argue the merits of the variable premium scheme. The fact that the Commission is now proposing some sort of premium system is an advance, but it is a fixed premium, not a variable one. Obviously the variable one helps, because it responds to market forces much more effectively.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the hill compensatory amount for the suckler cow subsidy and premium are essential to the welfare and economic progress of hill and less-favoured area farms? Will he please make every endeavour to maintain the programme that we have had in the recent past?

Mr. Gummer: I certainly recognise the great importance of those particular arrangements. We are determined to see that proper arrangements continue and, above all, that no arrangement is introduced for beef and ewes which will discriminate against our larger flocks and herds.

Mr. Marlow: Has the Commission any evidence whatever that the livestock sector and, particularly, the cattle fatteners are making an indecent level of profit? If so, what is it? What would happen if there were a restriction on the payments for livestock farmers? Would that not depress store cattle and calf prices, causing a knock-on effect on dairy producers?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the Commission does not have that evidence. It is attempting to change the regime so that the present situation, in which meat is taken into storage with the result that it immediately loses value, does not exist. The moment meat goes into cold store, value is lost. The Commission is proposing a range of changes which will take that into account. I hope that my hon. Friend will be both tough with us in determining that the solution is good for Britain, but willing to accept that the Commission is trying to produce a decent answer.

Forestry Commission

Dr. Marek: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much acreage the Forestry Commission currently owns in England and in Wales.

Mr. Jopling: The Forestry Commission does not own any land in England and Wales. Ownership of such land is vested in the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales respectively, and the land is formally placed at the disposal of forestry commissioners to manage in accordance with their statutory duties. As at 31 March 1985, the Forestry Commission managed approximately 439,000 hectares of land in England and Wales.

Dr. Marek: In view of the thwarting of the right hon. Gentleman's plans to sell off the family silver, will he accept his defeat by the Secretary of State for Scotland with good grace?

Mr. Jopling: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 21 February by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend please ensure that sale of any land managed on his behalf by the Forestry Commission is carried out in circumstances that are, and are seen to be, open, honest and above board? Will he give the House an assurance that the Forestry Commission will do no secret deals with developers, and that all land that is sold will be sold on open tender?

Mr. Jopling: The Forestry Commission aims to ensure that all potential purchasers are given proper opportunity

to express an interest, and that the maximum price is obtained by using the most appropriate method of sale, whether by formal or informal tender, private treaty or auction.

Mr. Skinner: What is this mania for privatisation? Water, trees. A bloke in Bolsover said to me not so long ago, "Don't go down to the woods today. They've flogged off the forest."

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Member is full of surprises. He continually surprises us with his new moods. I suppose that this is his whimsical mood. I must say that if I were going down to the woods I would not go with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that far too much timber is imported at the moment, that the Forestry Commission does not give enough emphasis to hardwoods and that we should encourage more private enterprise in the hardwood sector and move towards a sytem of auction?

Mr. Jopling: A broadleaves policy was announced last year and is already having a noticeable effect. The Forestry Commission's broadleaved woodland grant scheme has got off to a good start and will mean that many more broadleaves will be planted in future by private owners and that the Commission itself will plant more.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The largest consumer of timber in the United Kingdom, and the Forestry Commission's largest customer, is Thames Board Mills in my constituency, which produces board. Will the Minister assure us that if privatisation is again placed before Ministers for consideration, that industry, and that company in particular, will be consulted before any Green Paper is published? They would have a statement to make.

Mr. Jopling: I know very well that the hon. Gentleman's constituency contains an important business in this sector. As he will know from the reply of 21 February to which I referred, Government policy on these matters, as in all other areas, is kept under regular review.

Mr. Marland: Under the recent Forestry Act, the Royal Forest of Dean was exempted from any sale. May I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that if there are any sales of Forestry Commission assets in future, the position of the Royal Forest of Dean will remain inviolate?

Mr. Jopling: I shall bear in mind very carefully everything that my hon. Friend tells me, as I have done on almost all subjects over the past three years.

Mr. John: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that his first non-answer will strengthen the unworthy suspicion among forestry people that, despite his defeat by his ministerial colleagues, he still hankers after a massive disposition of forestry land? Will the Minister assure us that there will be no major disposition of land managed by the Forestry Commission before the next general election?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer the question.

Mr. Jopling: I have no more to say than what I said in my earlier answer, part of which I repeated a few seconds ago. Like all other areas of Government activity, the matter is kept under regular review.

Mr. Greenway: Ramblers, walkers and horse riders from urban and rural areas fear that they will lose their rights of access to Forestry Commission land if they are privatised. Will my right hon. Friend undertake that such rights will not be lost if Forestry Commission land is privatised?

Mr. Jopling: Under the existing disposal arrangements, of which the House is aware and to which it has agreed, such matters are kept under careful review all the time.

Intervention Stores

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total stock of beef, butter, skimmed milk and cereals held in European Economic Community intervention stores in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gummer: As at 28 February 1986 stocks of beef, butter, skimmed milk powder and cereals held in United Kingdom intervention stores totalled 6.065 million tonnes.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not a crazy system in which so much food is removed in order to ensure that prices are kept higher than they would normally be? How much longer can the CAP be tolerated? As for all the items mentioned by the Minister, instead of selling them off to the Russians at much reduced prices, why should we not sell them off to pensioners and others on low incomes in our own country as well as perhaps, where appropriate, assisting people in the countries in Africa, where starvation and hunger prevail?

Mr. Gummer: On the last part of the question, the hon. Gentleman should talk to the aid agencies, all of which are concerned that we should not sell this food cheaply to countries in Africa and have asked us not to do so because it undermines the indigenous agriculture. The hon. Gentleman's information is 10 years out of date. As to why we do not sell it cheaply to our own people, we are completely in favour of doing that, and we do it where it does not mean a reduction in consumption under normal arrangements, as that would only increase the amount in store.

Mr. Key: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most of the problems in British agriculture are problems of success and that no one wants to reduce input costs more than farmers do? Will he seriously consider any request from the Natural Environment Research Council to carry out a major ecological study into the effects on our water and land of nitrogen and phosphorus? Will he consider financing, or helping to finance, such a project?

Mr. Gummer: That matter is constantly under review and we would appreciate any additional information from my hon. Friend. It is better to attempt to deal with the problems of plenty than with the problems of shortage, which we would have had without the CAP.

Mr. Deakins: As we did not have such disgracefully large stocks when Britain had its own agricultural policy, is not the only remedy after 10 or more years of the CAP, to get out of the CAP and have an independent policy?

Mr. Gummer: The present system was renegotiated by the Labour Government. Surpluses are a worldwide problem, and the idea that the hon. Gentleman can lay the

blame for them at the door of the Common Market is sheer nonsense. If we returned to deficiency payments it would cost us nearly twice as much as the present system.

Mr. Marlow: What was the value of the 6 million tonnes, and how much did the British taxpayer have to pay last year in intervention and stockholding costs in advance of sale of these commodities from store?

Mr. Gummer: I shall be happy to answer the second part of my hon. Friend's question if he will put it down separately. The value of the present stores is £387 million of butter, £240 million of beef, £41 million of skimmed milk and £692 million of cereals.

Mr. Evans: How much of the foodstuffs held in intervention stores in the United Kingdom are unfit for human consumption? If the Minister does not have the figures now, will he supply them to me later?

Mr. Gummer: One reason for the high cost of keeping those goods in intervention is that we are keeping them so that they will be fit for human consumption. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point carefully.

Mr. Livsey: Does the Minister agree that he was incorrect to state on television on Sunday that the disposal of butter and beef has caused similar problems of reduction of price for European consumers, when it is well known that the elasticity of demand for beef differs from that of butter, and that a small reduction in the price of beef to our consumers would result in a large increase in beef consumption?

Mr. Gummer: I do not agree that what I said on television on Sunday was wrong; nor do I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Home Robertson: As next year's surpluses are already growing in the fields, does the Minister accept the Government's responsibility to help agriculture to reduce production before the surpluses become bigger? Before there are any more cut-price bargain offers to Libya, Russia or anywhere else, may we have an undertaking that the poor people of Britain will at least have first refusal on the surpluses?

Mr. Gummer: In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I refer him to my reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Wherever possible, the Government are determined, without increasing the amount of goods in store, to help British people. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is true, and it is no good his stirring it up for party political reasons. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's first point, we cannot stop the amount that is being grown this year, because, as the hon. Gentleman says, it is already in the ground. The Government's policy is to arrive at a common agricultural policy which much more closely matches supply with demand.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: In dealing with the problem of disposing of surpluses internally, will my right hon. Friend bear carefully in mind, and demonstrate the point adequately to Labour Members, that when beef was introduced to pensioners in the early 1970s by the beef token scheme it very nearly wrecked the poultry industry? Action in one sector can have a devastating knock-on effect in another.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. I hope he will agree that when we tried to introduce the


Christmas butter scheme people bought the butter at the reduced price, put it into their freezers, and as a result did not buy ordinary butter, and we took a lot of extra butter, at a high price, into the very intervention stores to which Labour Members object.

Food and Drink Marketing

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the objectives of his Ministry's policy on the processing, distribution and marketing of food and drink; how he is monitoring its effectiveness; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): The Government's policy is to encourage improvements in the processing, distribution and marketing of food, and to ensure high standards of food hygiene and safety. My Department monitors many of the fundamental measures of the industry's performance and operates an extensive system of surveillance to check on the safety of foods.

Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that Rayner scrutiny techniques are being used to the best effect in the Department, and what results are being achieved?

Mrs. Fenner: There was no specific Rayner scrutiny in the area of food and drink, but we are looking closely at our objectives in all areas and at associated measures of efficiency and effectiveness.

Mr. Cohen: How about giving a higher priority to quality and types of food for good health? Britain is at the top of the coronary deaths league, and improper diet is recognised as a key factor in that. When will the Government face their responsibilities in that area and, instead of facilitating the search for unlimited profit, put some action into the search for better health?

Mrs. Fenner: Health is the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a committee looked particularly into any connection between diet and cardiovascular disease. It made four recommendations, only one of which affects labelling in my Department, and that is statutory fat labelling, which we are now preparing. The other recommendations did not involve labelling. We are also discussing and preparing a voluntary format for other nutritional labellings, because consumers are interested in that.

Mr. Gregory: Will my hon. Friend hold urgent discussions with Food from Britain on the objectives of her marketing policy, because of the organisation's lack-lustre performance, particularly in respect of confectionery and good English drinks, such as beer, because at present on the export market that is singularly lacking?

Mrs. Fenner: Not only does Food from Britain place a priority on confectionery, but I know from visiting food exhibitions in other countries that it is doing a good job. My hon. Friend will know that when the £14 million pump-priming funds run out, the Government have pledged £1 for every £2 from industry. We have given the lead, and it is now up to industry to show that it will follow that.

Agricultural Workers (Wages)

Miss Maynard: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in the current negotiations on agricultural workers' wages, information concerning the annual incomes of those farmers who employ labour will be made available to the chairman of the Agricultural Wages Board; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jopling: Although it was not possible to provide such information during the recent negotiations, as a result of current developments in processing the relevant data the information should be available in time for the next wage round.

Miss Maynard: Is the Secretary of State aware that the National Farmers Union made a survey of farm incomes relating to farmers who employ labour, but was unwilling to give that information to the Agricultural Wages Board during the current wage negotiations?

Mr. Jopling: As the hon. Lady knows, what goes on in the business and meetings of the Agricultural Wages Board is not a matter for me, but I hope that it will be possible to provide that information to the Agricultural Wages Board for the next wage round. We are currently reviewing the analysis of the farm management survey, which would provide that information.

Sir John Farr: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the chairman would have available the detail relating to farm incomes in the appropriate year, and moreover that he would be aware that incomes off the farm declined by about 60 per cent. last year?

Mr. Jopling: As in the past, my Department has supplied the chairman and members of the Agricultural Wages Board with as much information as it is possible to give them, but, as I said, in this case considerable computer programming and other resources would have been needed to provide such information, and those resources were just not available at the time.

Mr. Randall: I welcome what the Minister said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), but does he agree that farm workers have been paid far too little for far too long for what are very high skills? Given the appalling situation that now exists, I hope that some positive steps will be taken to correct the situation. Will the Minister assure us that he will use his influence on the Agricultural Wages Board to make sure that in the end we have a much fairer deal for agricultural workers?

Mr. Jopling: I think the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that that is a rather surprising question, because the statutory minimum rates are a matter for the independent Agricultural Wages Board. They are not a matter for Ministers. As to using my influence, I think that in certain circumstances the hon. Gentleman would raise the roof were I to attempt to do so. I do not intend so to do.

Cereals

Mr. Evans: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the cut in farmgate prices of cereals which would be necessary to secure a diminution in the overall level of production of cereals within the European Economic Community.

Mr. Gummer: Lower prices will, over time, lead to lower production than would otherwise have occurred, but as I an unable to predict either the weather or the speed of technological change, I cannot predict accurately what amount of price reduction will be necessary to produce a given amount of production.

Mr. Evans: Putting that answer on one side, does the Minister agree that substantial cuts in producers' prices would not only damage farmers' incomes but would have a devastating effect on rural employment and the rural economy, which have already been badly damaged by the actions of the Government over the past five years? Would it not be more intelligent to have a more sensible, balanced package of measures which would include some measure of quotas, which would be beneficial to farmers of marginal land?

Mr. Gummer: No system of quotas or anything else will be sensible if one does not take into account the fact that weather changes from year to year and that the speed of technological change alters the amount of excess with which one has to deal. The hon. Gentleman cannot just ignore those two basic facts. For that reason, he will know that we are working for a package that will meet those needs. The hon. Gentleman cannot get out of the situation that the proposal that he has put forward would not be acceptable to any part of the industry.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, when looking at the production of wheat and cereals, that in Scotland feed wheat is commercially grown there and that we are not in a state of surplus? In fact we are substantially short of a surplus. This factor has to be borne in mind, because it affects many other issues.

Mr. Gummer: We have to look at the surpluses in the Community as a whole in all commodities. It would not be possible to maintain a system under which we went on increasing the surpluses in the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, in the rest of the European Community until such time as every part was self-sufficient. But my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the arrangements that we make must take into account the particular problems of Scotland and the growth of wheat in Scotland.

Mr. John: I thought that it was only the Department of the Environment with which the right hon. Gentleman quarrelled, but now he is quarrelling with the Minister of Agriculture. As the Minister has told us repeatedly that surpluses are to be controlled by cutting farmgate prices, how on earth are we to take that seriously if he cannot even estimate what cut is necessary to bring down production?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman, who leads for the Opposition, must accept that last year's harvest, in both quantity and quality, was very much affected by the weather, as was the previous year's harvest. The question that was tabled asked whether I would predict what price would result in a given amount of production. Any Minister who did that would be damned foolish.

Mr. Leigh: If it is considered impossible to obtain a consensus in Europe on the level of price restraint deemed necessary to curb over-production, and if it is considered necessary to add a policy of set-aside to price restraint, does my right hon. Friend agree that compulsory set-aside should be resisted, as it would favour the less productive cereal-growing areas, and that a suitable way forward

might be voluntary set-aside coupled with price restraint and tax incentives to encourage farmers to move into alternative crops, such as forestry?

Mr. Gummer: In our discussions with the Council of Ministers my right hon. Friend made it clear that one of the matters that we should like to have looked at very carefully was the principle of voluntary set-aside. I am sure that much, if not all, of what my hon. Friend has said is right.

Food Standards (Advisory Committees)

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what form of words encompasses the confidentiality agreed for members of advisory committees on food standards.

Mrs. Fenner: When they are appointed, members of the Food Advisory Committee are informed that under the terms of the Official Secrets Act information given to them in their capacity as members of the committee should not be disclosed outside the committee.

Mr. Meadowcroft: In view of the Minister's reply, why did she write to her hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) on 23 May stating categorically that the members of those two committees are required to sign the Official Secrets Act, although her right hon. Friend, who is sitting next to her, denied that in March of this year?

Mrs. Fenner: They are not required to sign the Official Secrets Act, but the answer that I have just given to the hon. Gentleman is conveyed to them. That is only in respect of commercial confidentiality, because full reports of the advice of that committee and of the committee on toxicity are published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Mr. Aitken: Although I am sure that my hon. Friend is almost as surprised as I am that our previous billets doux on the subject of official secrecy have been revealed this afternoon by the Liberal party, will she nevertheless consider the absurdity of the Government's position? Surely it is unrealistic and unwise to invoke the criminal law when food advice should be the subject of maximum publicity, rather than the subject of maximum secrecy?

Mrs. Fenner: It is common practice for all Governments to respect commercial confidentiality and not to divulge information from one company that might be of direct benefit to its competitors. I assure my hon. Friend that the information is totally exposed when safety is involved. If he feels that it is not sufficiently accessible, I remind him that my right hon. Friend has already told the House that we are having discussions with the British Library to ensure that all such information is placed in that library, so that it might be more accessible to the public.

Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware that a great deal of suspicion surrounds the operations of the Food Advisory Committee? I recognise the need for certain commercial confidentiality, but does she agree that the time has come for more openness by this public body?

Mrs. Fenner: I realise that the hon. Gentleman prepared his question before I gave my previous answer. I hope that I have reassured him by repeating what my right hon. Friend has said, namely, that we are discussing arrangements for placing that information in the British


Library. At the moment we exhort all sources of such research to make it public, but it is very difficult to get the information into scientific journals, because sometimes it is rather pedestrian and pretty dull. Therefore, we are discussing whether it can possibly be placed in the British Library.

Dairy Quotas

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he will take to encourage the European Economic Community to extend the more flexible dairy quota scheme beyond an initial one-year period.

Mr. Gummer: The Commission has not proposed extending this provision. We shall need to consider very carefully our position on this, because I see some difficulty in justifying the continuation of a measure which limits the effectiveness of the quota system while we still have a 14½ million tonne surplus of milk.

Mr. Oppenheim: I welcome the Government's success in encouraging the European Economic Community to accept the principle of flexibility, but will my right hon. Friend commit himself to pushing as hard as possible for that flexibility to be extended beyond the first year, because that is essential for the efficiency of the dairy sector?

Mr. Gummer: The flexibility which is important is the ability to lease or to buy quotas. That is the flexibility which we particularly need and which we have not yet won.

Forestry

Mr. Yeo: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the total acreage planted for forestry in England and Wales has changed in the last year for which figures are available.

Mr. Jopling: Between 1 April 1984 and 31 March 1985 the total area of new planting in England and Wales by the Forestry Commission and by private woodland owners with the aid of Commission grants was 2,222 hectares, compared with 3,216 hectares in the previous 12-month period.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be highly desirable for more land to be devoted to forestry and less to producing those crops which are already in surplus? Will he, therefore, consider introducing additional incentives to increase the amount of land devoted to forestry?

Mr. Jopling: I shall certainly consider that, but my hon. Friend should know that the Government's policy is to encourage the expansion of forestry in ways consistent with the needs of other rural interests. Substantial funding of private forestry takes place through the Forestry Commission's grant schemes, and there has been a significant rise in private planting levels over the past few years.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Corbyn: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether she has confidence in her lame duck Secretary of State for Education and Science or in the governors of Christ's college school in her constituency, who have decided under the chairmanship of the former chairman of the Finchley Conservative party, Councillor John Tiplady, that it is impractical to proceed with the general certificate of secondary education examination course starting this September?

The Prime Minister: I have great confidence in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and so have my constituents.

Mr. Mudd: Will my right hon. Friend reflect, in the period between her other meetings today, on the fact that that if the roof of a Cornish tin mine fell in and three Cornish tin miners were killed the world would see a flurry of activity at Westminster and Whitehall and much attention paid to the Cornish crisis? Yet one Cornish tin mine has closed, 270 jobs have died and the life of a community is in peril. Why is there not the same interest on the part of Whitehall in this crisis in Cornwall to which we expect the Government to respond?

The Prime Minister: I have made it clear on previous occasions that the Government would be prepared to consider applications for projects to bring the tin mines up to commercial viability. I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry has received an application for assistance from the Geevor tin mine. It will be considered as soon as possible.

Dr. Owen: Will the Prime Minister confirm that she has offered talks on an open agenda to the leaders of the Ulster political parties and that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was wrong when he said in a radio interview today that the talks are not open but conditional? Will she confirm that there are no preconditions on either side?

The Prime Minister: I have made it absolutely clear that the Anglo-Irish accord, endorsed by the House and the other place, will continue and will be implemented. I would very much like, nevertheless, to have talks with the representatives of the Unionist party on matters which have been previously identified and on other matters if they wish to bring them up.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that British publishers are losing tens of millions of pounds through piracy, and that the two countries with the worst record in this regard are Taiwan and South Korea? Has she raised with Mr. Chun during his visit the problems that his country's companies are causing British publishers? If not, will she please do so?

The Prime Minister: I did not raise that particular matter with the President. I believe that it was raised by the Department of Trade and Industry. We are greatly concerned about it. Singapore is another country which is taking action, I understand.

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mikardo: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. Will she have time today to reply to a letter that she received some time ago from the general secretary of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs about the deteriorating position in the Westland factory at Weston-super-Mare? Will she have time today to tell United Technologies that if it is operating factories in Great Britain it must do so within the framework of British and not American labour law?

The Prime Minister: If it is a matter for the law, it will be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. If it concerns only a private sector company, it is a matter for the company.

Mrs. Peacock: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Peacock: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity today to read the leader in The Times, which suggests that the Government will not honour the Anglo-Irish agreement? Will she confirm to the House that she is totally committed to its success and to its implementation?

The Prime Minister: Yes. As I have indicated, the Government are committed to the Anglo-Irish accord and to its implementation, and will continue to implement it. Of course, we should also like to talk to the Unionists on the basis which I indicated previously, on particular points. I hope that the Unionists will take advantage of that opportunity to come and talk, but the accord will continue.

Mr. Kinnock: May I first say that a continuing commitment to the accord, coupled with a dialogue with people from the Unionist section of the community in Northern Ireland, is an intelligent approach which will be supported on the Labour side of the House?
Is the Prime Minister aware that there is widespread support among the disabled and the professional and voluntary organisations that have particular care for the disabled for the private Member's Bill that has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)? Will she give an undertaking that when the Bill is debated tomorrow the Government will not introduce any amendments that would weaken or in any way impede its principles as introduced by my hon. Friend?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government have tabled certain amendments to the Bill which we believe will make proper provision without imposing undue burdens on local authorities.

Mr. Kinnock: The Government's approach to the Bill is cheap and nasty. Will the Prime Minister accept that, in the interests of humanity and efficiency in providing proper care for the disabled, and in the interests of those who care for them and save the country £5 billion a year, the Bill would go much of the way towards ensuring that the disabled are properly represented and that information about their cases is properly communicated?

The Prime Minister: When it comes to expressing concern for the disabled, this Government have an

extremely good record—better than that of any previous Government. [Interruption.] We have increased spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled by over one third in real terms to over £4·5 billion. Associations representing the disabled made it clear when we came into office that their main priority was a speeding-up of the introduction of the mobility allowance, which we did. We increased substantially its value. We made it non-taxable and we increased spending—[Interruption]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister was asked a question. She is giving the answer and the House should listen.

The Prime Minister: We increased spending on the mobility allowance by four and a half times in real terms. It is not for the right hon. Gentleman to criticise the record of this Government on help for the disabled.

Mr. Kinnock: Surely the right hon. Lady must know that no one who is disabled or who cares for the disabled can accept the description of her policies that she has offered. It does not stand up in practice. Is it not the case that she heads a Government who cut the invalidity allowance? Have not her Government inflicted cuts on local government which have prevented it fulfilling even its statutory duties towards the disabled? Will she further accept that all the advances that have been made under her Government were originated by the last Labour Government? If the Prime Minister cares as much as she says she cares, surely supporting my hon. Friend's Bill would be a very small addition to what she has already done.

The Prime Minister: Which of the facts that I have given does the right hon. Gentleman quarrel with? In addition, we have extended the long-term supplementary rate to many disabled people, we have extended the entitlement to invalidity care allowance to non-relatives, and we have abolished the invalidity trap, which will benefit over 50,000 disabled people. It is an excellent record for disabled people, and all the finance has been found in the lifetime of this Government.

Mr. Parris: Can my right hon. Friend find time to express to Fidel Castro, through the Cuban ambassador, her congratulations on his decision to sell Cuban council houses to their existing tenants?

The Prime Minister: I confess that I do not regard that as of top priority today, but any move towards capitalism and freedom by a Communist society is welcome.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Prime Minister find time in her busy day to reply to a letter that I sent her in relation to the ordering of auxiliary oil replenishment vessels? Will she give us some indication that the rules in terms of procurement policy have been obeyed here? In addition, will she end the speculation in relation to the ordering of type 23 frigates 02, 03 and 04 and confirm that some of those orders will go to Yarrow as the lead yard?

The Prime Minister: As I have said, the figures on the AORs are being looked at to ensure that the competition is fair. I have no further statement to make at present.

Mr. Cockeram: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cockeram: Is my right hon. Friend not concerned that, following the drop in world oil prices, our electricity generating industry is still paying historic and artificially high prices for its coal, with the consequence that our electricity prices to British industry are higher than those on the continent? Is she aware that this is having detrimental effects on employment in industry? Will the Prime Minister seek to ensure that this further hidden subsidy to the coal industry is ended?

The Prime Minister: I think my hon. Friend will agree that what he says is very good evidence of the wisdom of this Government's policy for the coal industry of getting rid of uneconomic pits and concentrating on economic pits that have good seams and where higher productivity can produce lower-priced coal, to the benefit both of the coal industry and of the electricity industry. He is quite right. The electricity supply industry will have to be in touch with the National Coal Board about the price of coal to enable electricity suppliers to pass on some of the reductions that people have been expecting since the fall in the price of oil.

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister accept that some of the Government's policies for the inner city, ring pretty hollow when, at the same time as money is cut back for housing for rent in the public and private sector and there is in the south-east an 11·8 per cent. increase in the cost of housing, in docklands a former criminal can run a docklands property centre which in 18 months has been able, as a result of insider dealing, to resell housing bought for £75,000 at prices of £250,000 and above? Will she

make sure that her right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment investigate the abuse and exploitation of housing in the inner city, to the detriment of people who desperately need to be housed?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the amount devoted to the urban grant has been greatly increased during the lifetime of this Government. Moreover, I am sure that he would be the first to wish to congratulate the Government on the London docklands authority, which has done things for that part of London that have never been done before under any Government, including the provision of much cheaper housing.

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend resist any temptation to compromise on the Shops Bill, which, although superficially attractive, would lead only to new anomalies, unenforceable laws and, in the suggestion of passing the buck to local authorities, would only add to the nationwide hotch-potch of local standards that already exist for pub hours, sex shops and the fluoridation of water supplies? Will she tell the House that next week we will have a straight choice between freedom of choice on Sunday observance and the strict and costly enforcement of the existing criminal law by local authorities?

The Prime Minister: I believe that it is common ground that the present law is unenforceable, and that if one attempted to enforce it, that would have the effects that my hon. Friend has described. Many people will share my hon. Friend's view. The proposals are contained in the Bill which I have reason to believe will be before the House shortly.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the Houe to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 APRIL—Second Reading of the Shops Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 15 APRIL—Timetable motion on the Social Security Bill.
Second Reading of the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill.
Motions relating to legal aid and advice orders and regulations, details of the relevant statutory instruments will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 16 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Agriculture Bill.
Motion relating to the Education (Schools and Further Education) (Amendment) Regulations.
Motion on the Commission on Disposals of Land (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY 17 APRIL—Opposition Day (11th Allotted Day) until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on education. The debate will arise on a motion in the names of the Leaders of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties. Afterwards there will be a debate on regional policy on a motion in the names of the leaders of the Scottish Nationalist party and Plaid Cymru.
FRIDAY 18 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 21 APRIL—Opposition Day (12th Allotted Day) there will be a debate on an Opposition motion. The subject for debate to be announced.

[Legal Aid Regulations for Debate on Tuesday 15 April 1986:

Legal Aid (Scotland) (Assessment of Resources) Amendment Regulations 1986

Legal Aid in Criminal Proceedings (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1986

Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 1986

Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1986

Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1986

Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1986

Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations 1986.]

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he give an undertaking to use his considerable influence to ensure that there is a free vote among Conservative Members on the Second Reading of the Shops Bill next Monday? As he is a supporter of choice, does he not believe that choice should be extended to members of his own party as well as to other hon. Members over something that is very much a matter of conscience for many hon. Members? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to discuss through the usual channels the possibility of giving extra time for the debate on Monday night?
During the debate on the legal aid and advice orders next Tuesday, serious and very complicated matters will arise that will require extensive examination. May we have extra time for that debate?
May I remind the Leader of the House of his promise before the Easter recess of a debate on the future of British Leyland and its constituent parts? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry comes to the House as quickly as possible to make a statement about the recent developments and, in particular, the claim by current bidders, as reported in this morning's edition of the Financial Times, that they had been "misled" by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?
Last weekend's letter from the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education to polytechnic directors caused justifiable alarm at the proposed cuts in the next academic year. The knowledge that the University Grants Committee is preparing letters for all universities to plan 2 per cent. cuts in the same year is likely to meet a similar alarmed response. There is widespread concern at the continuing reduction in opportunities at universities and other institutions for higher education for young people with the necessary qualifications. Will the right hon. Gentleman grant Government time very soon for a proper debate on higher education before the NAB and the UGC have their proposals taken any further?
Finally, can the Leader of the House ensure that an opportunity is granted soon for a debate on the test ban treaty? This and many other international issues are growing in importance and completely justify the allocation very soon of at least two days for a comprehensive foreign affairs debate.

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the conventions of voting lie with my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, who will have heard the eloquent plea just made and will evaluate it accordingly.
I realise that the Shops Bill is causing concern in all parts of the House, and I shall be happy to have the matter of extra time for debate further considered through the usual channels.
Perhaps we can also consider, through the usual channels, the timing and duration of Tuesday evening's debate on the orders on legal aid matters.
Obviously, I stand by the previous statements I have made about the timing of the debate on British Leyland. Meanwhile, I will convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the right hon. Gentleman's interest in a statement on this matter.
I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says about the desirability of a debate on the higher education problems, related to the work of the National Advisory Body and the University Grants Committee. We will consider the matter through the usual channels and there is at least a chance of having a debate on education on Wednesday next week.
Finally, I take at once the point the right hon. Gentleman makes about the test ban treaty, underlining the importance of a foreign affairs debate; perhaps we might consider that matter further.

Sir Paul Bryan: Do the Government intend to have the Shops Bill committed to a Special Standing Committee?

Mr. Biffen: Such a matter, by tradition, is discussed through the usual channels, but I take note of my hon. Friend's interest in it. I believe there would be merit in such a procedure, and we might consider it.

Mr. David Alton: Given that the proposal to introduce Sunday trading was not contained in the 1983 Conservative party manifesto, will the Leader of the House accept that opinion on these Benches very much supports the idea that there should be a free vote? Will he communicate that fact to the Patronage Secretary? Will he also accept that many of us would like the debate extended to midnight on Monday, so that all sides of the question can be put?
I notify the Leader of the House that, during the debate on Thursday next, the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party intend to move a motion of no confidence in his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

Mr. Biffen: As to the final point, we will bear the rigours of a "no confidence" vote with such equanimity as we can muster. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the points he made earlier about the Shops Bill were also made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I am favourably disposed to both requests.

Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend consider an early debate on the future of occupational pensions? Is he aware of the urgency of this matter? If occupational pension funds were forced to invest in a national investment bank, which would invest in lame ducks, it would affect 11 million occupational pensioners who are looking forward to pensions for which they have subscribed?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes an extremely fair and pertinent point. I have no doubt that we shall recognise that one of the new badges of Socialism is not the ownership of equity by the state, but the political direction of private funds. I cannot immediately offer the prospect of a debate, but I suspect that the course of the Finance Bill itself will allow the matter to be dealt with.

Mr. Peter Shore: In view of your important ruling yesterday, Mr. Speaker, on hybridity with respect to the Airports Bill and Manchester airport, when does the Leader of the House expect to announce the formation of a Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure which can fully consider hybridity and other matters?

Mr. Biffen: The matter is under consideration. I hope to be in touch with the right hon. Gentleman about it.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the substantial support by both sides of the House for early-day motion 280 is still growing?
[That this House notes the widespread concern felt in Parliament by eminent scientists, by other responsible observers and by members of the public who have viewed programmes on the matter screened by Channel 4, that Anne Maguire, Patrick Maguire (senior), Vincent Maguire (then aged 17), Patrick Maguire (then aged 14), Sean Smyth, Patrick O'Neill and the late Giuseppe Conlon, sentenced in 1976 to long terms of imprisonment since served, now appear, despite confirmation of their convictions at the time by the Court of Appeal, to have been entirely innocent of the crime with which they were charged; further notes at the conclusion of a debate in the

other place on 17th. May 1975, the recognition by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office of the strength of feeling on this matter in that House and his pledge to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what had been said; and therefore earnestly urges the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the interests of the highest standards of British justice of which this country needs to feel rightly proud, to move without delay for a review of these convictions, either under the provisions of section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, or by such other public process of review as he may deem appropriate to this disturbing case.]
Will we at least have an interim statement next week on the Government's position on the miscarriage of justice in the Maguire case?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has made this point to me a number of times. I shall certainly look at the matter and refer it to the appropriate Department so that it is considered.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Further to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), is he prepared to refer to the Joint Committee my exchange of correspondence with Mr. Speaker about hybridity and the Airports Bill?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot answer that question specifically in the terms in which it has been presented. I think that we should wait until we have had initial discussions on the topic. I shall bear the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety in mind.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill passed its Committee stage just before Easter with flying colours? Because that legislation is well in advance of other European legislation and because it deals specifically with animal rights, will my right hon. Friend consider bringing forward the Report and Third Reading stages sooner rather than later?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of my hon. Friend's comments. I should like to underline what he said about the way in which the Bill was handled in Committee. I think that my hon. Friend will appreciate that, at this time of the year, there are a number of competitors for parliamentary time.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly two months have passed since a deputation went to see the Secretary of State for Defence? That deputation was composed of hon. Members on both sides of the House, gravely disabled service men who had been crippled by alleged negligence and the parents of service men who had been burned to death, again by alleged negligence The deputation asked the Secretary of State to repeal section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and to enable disabled service men on non-combatant duties or their survivors to claim the same compensation as that claimed by any other public servant. However, we have not received a reply from the Secretary of State. Will a statement be made next week?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate that point and the difficulty that would be faced in raising it on Second Reading of the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill. Those matters


are not totally unrelated. I shall refer the right hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Sir Adam Butler: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members object to the fundamental principle of total deregulation in the Shops Bill? Does he accept also that we want change and would genuinely like to help him put the right legislation on the statute book? Does he agree that, during Monday's debate, one or both of the Ministers should give us a categorical assurance that the Government will support amendments that would remove total deregulation in a suitable way?

Mr. Biffen: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's point about the necessity for legislation and about the vitality of the debate about the appropriate type of legislation. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to that point.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: About the business on Friday next week, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, if the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill is talked out tomorrow because of the intervention of the Government Whips Office—which has asked Conservative Members to talk at length on the Bill—that will happen on the very day that the Prime Minister is visiting disabled people in Devon? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be time next Friday to consider that legislation?

Mr. Biffen: The usual procedures will be followed.

Sir John Farr: Can my right hon. Friend set at rest the fears of those in the knitwear and hosiery trade about the current negotiations on the future multifibre arrangement? If the discussions come to a head, as they may well do, within the next week or two, will he arrange for any proposals to be placed before the House?

Mr. Biffen: I know that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the House debated the multi-fibre arrangement on 13 February. Negotiations on renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement are under way and the House will be kept informed of progress.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, tomorrow Christie's is quite improperly auctioning a painting by Goya which the Spanish Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In that case I shall withdraw my question. I am relieved to hear the change of mind by Christie's.

Hon. Members: It has been sold.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether there is any Government responsibility for that.

Mr. Conal Gregory: Will my right hon. Friend find time during the following week to have a major debate on Britain's fastest growth industry, tourism, in view of the slur that the chairman of ICI has made equating service with servility? We should also debate the fact that this country desperately needs a growth in manufacturing industry as well as in tourism and a chance to debate the Select Committee on Trade and Industry's report?

Mr. Biffen: Before I answer that, perhaps I might be allowed to maintain my self-sought standard of being a philistine. I did not know that Christie's was selling a painting tomorrow.
I am attracted to the fact that there should be an opportunity for the House to debate tourism, which is such an important element in our economy and provides so many jobs. I think that my hon. Friend may find that the Committee on the Finance Bill will give him the chance he is looking for, one way or another.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Will the Leader of the House investigate and make a statement on press speculation that the Prime Minister is to be invited to open the Nissan factory in the north-east of England? As the Member of Parliament for that constituency, I would find her presence unwelcome and unacceptable because of the great damage that the Government's policies have caused to the economy of the north-east and the suffering they have caused our people in the region with the highest unemployment in Great Britain. Further than that, it would be an insult to the three authorities which negotiated the Nissan deal to attract it to my area. It is totally unacceptable and we do not want her there.

Mr. Biffen: Well there we are. I must say that many people in the north-east, earning a great deal less than the hon. Gentleman, will be only too delighted to see Nissan located there and will be happy to see the authority of this country symbolised by the commitment of the Prime Minister to that project. I do not know whether she is going but I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Bearing in mind the fact that my right hon. Friend is aware that over two weeks ago the Select Committee on Trade and Industry published a unanimous report on the tin crisis, will he persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the House next week to reply to that report and tell the House what the Government will do to help the Cornish tin miners, before there are none left? Will he give time, as recommended in the report, for a debate on the refusal of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to allow civil servants to answer our questions in full or to answer them himself?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has raised an important point and I shall certainly look into it.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the leader of the House recollect that, during the Easter Adjournment debate he undertook to look, with the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury, at the case of Mr. Jim Smith, and at the case of Mr. Clarence Robinson? In the light of the fact that Secretary Weinberger has apologised to the Secretary of State for Defence over the Clarence Robinson episode, should not some statement be made next week? How is the right hon. Gentleman getting on with the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury?

Mr. Biffen: I recollect the Easter Adjournment debate, not least because the hon. Gentleman reminded me specifically to include the Treasury in my consideration.

Mr. Dalyell: Yes.

Mr. Biffen: There, we are at one. I shall look at the matter afresh and be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Can we have an early debate on mortgage tax relief so that every household with a mortgage will be able to understand how expensive a vote for either of the alliance parties would be?

Mr. Biffen: The point which my hon. Friend makes is not only topical but one of growing public interest. The earliest opportunity for the matter to be debated will he in Committee on the Finance Bill.

Mr. David Penhaligon: May I remind the Leader of the House that, next week, it is six months since the tin crisis started. Is it not appropriate that the House should provide time—

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: And money

Mr. Penhaligon: —for the Select Committee report to be discussed? The Government would have the opportunity to defend their total lack of action to date.

Mr. Biffen: I could not accept those astringent and ungenerous remarks. I realise that the tin crisis continues to be a lively concern in the House. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the points which have been made this afternoon.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Since the Second Reading of the Shops Bill will take place next Monday, will my right hon. Friend consider making it a two-day debate and bring us here on Sunday so that we will know what it will be like when the shops are open?

Mr. Biffen: With a modicum of success, I have resisted the temptation to be an innovative Leader of the House. I certainly have no intention that we should come here on a Sunday to discuss the Shops Bill.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the crisis in Scottish prisons? Is the Leader of the House aware that Scotland has the highest male prisoner population per head of the population in western Europe? Prisoners on remand are being transferred to youth institutions, which is totally unsatisfactory. Prisoners are held and prison officers work in absolutely intolerable conditions. I urge the Leader of the House to urge the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on this crisis.

Mr. Biffen: I will draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. I realise that the hon. Gentleman feels that it is an important topic.

Mr. Richard Ryder: In view of the Government's commitment to conserve unique parts of the British landscape, as witnessed by their welcome decision to bring forward the Bill relating to the Broads and the success of the Halvergate grazing scheme, does the Leader of the House agree that this is a suitable moment for a major debate on conservation?

Mr. Biffen: Yes, if there were much more time available than I possess at present.

Mr. Robert Parry: Has the Leader of the House noticed the three early-day motions 673, 680 and 700?
[That this House recognises that while the Prime Minister has condemned dictatorships, her Government has

invited Chun Du Hwan to visit Britain following the brutal suppression of trade union and civil rights in his country; and accordingly calls for his visit to be cancelled.]
[That this House registers acute concern at the findings of Amnesty International in relation to the incidence of repression, suppression and torture in South Korea, exemplified by the case of Kim Keun-tae who was subjected to persistent police harassment, arbitrary arrest, denial of basic civil and legal rights, detention incommunicado and severe physical beating and abuse; urges the Prime Minister to take the opportunity of the visit to this country of President Chun Doo-Hwan to make strenuous representation of such acute concern, as she has been wont to do publicly in cases of other countries accused of similar or even less severe charges; and further urges her most earnestly to ensure that on the occasion of her reciprocal visit to South Korea next month she insists on meeting opposition representatives, especially Mr. Kim Dae Jung, Mr. Kim Young Sam, Mr. Lee Min Woo and Cardinal Kim Sou Dwan to satisfy herself and this country that they are made fully aware of prevailing circumstances and publicly to express British support for systems of government where opposition can be expressed freely, organised openly and demonstrated without penalty.]
[That this House calls upon the Prime Minister in her meeting with President Chun of South Korea to call for democratic reforms and the restoration of human rights in South Korea, to support Her Majesty's Government's official policy of the peaceful re-unification of the peninsula of Korea and to press for the withdrawal of all foreign troops and nuclear bases on Korean soil.]
The early-day motions deal with the visit of President Chun of South Korea. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary to make a statement, next week, from the Dispatch Box, to say whether the matters of human rights and freedoms of trade unions and the peaceful reunification of North and South Korea have been discussed? Unification is the official policy of the Government.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the House hopes that the visit of the President of South Korea will result in success from every point of view, not least in the mutual commercial interests that we have. I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Reverting to the Shops Bill, when my right hon. Friend has his talks through the usual channels, will he do two things? Will he refuse to succumb to the siren voices who believe that two hours extra debate will make the slightest difference, since most minds are already made up?
If my right hon. Friend listens to the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis) and brings us here on a Sunday, will he arrange to make sure that public transport and public utilities are not working? That is the obvious wish of those who want nothing to be done on Sundays.

Mr. Biffen: I have had quite enough problems with the Shops Bill without trying to fine-tune our experiences on a Sunday. I will leave that to one side. I take account of what my hon. Friend says about the extension of time on


Monday. I believe that a number of Members would like the time extended and it is something to be considered through the usual channels.

Mr. Ron Brown: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the middle east, bearing in mind the unstable nature of that part of the world and recognising that Mr. Reagan has not helped the position? Indeed, will the Leader of the House understand that all the threats against Libya, for all its faults, can only endanger our citizens who work legitimately for the Libyan Government?

Mr. Biffen: I have told the Leader of the Opposition that I thought we should try to find some agreed time for a foreign affairs debate. While I do not agree with overmuch of what the hon. Gentleman said, I agree that the middle east would be a central feature of such a debate.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: In view of the important remark of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) about the poisonous effect of certain legislation passed during the permissive sixties, does not my right hon. Friend think that the time that we shall use on the unnecessary Shops Bill could be better spent on reforming some of that legislation—for example, the Obscene Publications Act 1964?

Mr. Biffen: If one moves from the generality to the specific proposition, the whole matter becomes rather more contentious. However, my hon. Friend may well have the good fortune to make that point in Monday's debate.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am always reluctant to curtail business questions, but we have an important statement and a heavy day before us. I shall allow a further 10 minutes and then we must move on. If questions are brief, I shall be able to call every hon. Member who has been rising.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Has the Leader of the House noticed that more than 100 hon. Members from both sides of the House have signed early-day motion 627 congratulating the Disablement Income Group on its 21st anniversary?
[That this House congratulates the Disablement Income Group on achieving 21 years of service to the cause of disabled people; recognises its important role in informing Parliament and the public of the needs of disabled people; and looks forward to the attainment of its objectives, including the provision of a comprehensive national disability income, including a disablement costs allowance, and a society in which disabled people enjoy full equality of opportunity.]
Does he agree that, if he wishes to be associated with that notice, he should respond to that organisation's press release of today calling for an abandonment of the Government's amendments to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), which is due for debate tomorrow? Does he agree that, in view of the curtailment of the debate on the Social Security Bill next week, the Government should respond by giving Government time to allow my hon. Friend's Bill to go through?

Mr. Biffen: First, the point of substance should be directed to the Minister who has responsibility for handling the Bill from the Government Bench. Secondly, there is a reasonable case to be made for the timetable motion that is being proposed next week. I do not wish there to be any misunderstanding whatever: there is no prospect of Government time being made available for the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill.

Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend will recall that, although I am the Member of Parliament for Middlesbrough, South, I am banned from Middlesbrough council. He may care to bear in mind the disgraceful scenes at Middlesbrough council on Monday night this week when Labour councillors fought physically among themselves. If the Labour party does not have a topic for discussion next week, will my right hon. Friend suggest law and order, so that we could perhaps instil some sense of decency into the so-called leaders in our society?

Mr. Biffen: Those of us who have been students of the Labour party over many years have recognised that there has been a certain fraternal breeziness and occasionally a resort to excessive legalism, but that is a problem for the Leader of the Opposition. However, I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's thoughtful proposal.

Mr. Eric Deakins: In view of the constitutional importance of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill which is now before the House, will the Leader of the House assure us that, in accordance with precedent, the Committee and Report stages will be taken on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind.

Mr. David Harris: In underlining the pleas already made from both sides of the House for a debate next week or as soon as possible on the tin crisis, can I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the extreme urgency of the position, brought home by laying off workers in the Geevor mine in my constituency and the shadow that that has cast over the whole industry in Cornwall? Is he aware that, if we are not careful, that industry, which has existed for more than 2,000 years, could disappear?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has conducted his advocacy of the cause of the industry and of his constituency with dignity and effectiveness throughout. I shall be only too happy to refer his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Dr. John Marek: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British Railways (Stansted) Bill, upon which debate was adjourned recently, should wait its turn so that other private Bills can be debated on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Biffen: Private legislation does not properly fall within my authority.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Will my right hon. Friend seek to accommodate the excellent suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) that we should attempt to have an early debate on mortgage income tax relief, by persuading the alliance parties to use their time to clarify their policies on the issue? This is increasingly important in view of their attempts to resile from clear statements. The environment spokesman for the


Liberal party clearly stated that he would abolish mortgage income tax relief, and there was an equally clear statement by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Deveonport (Dr. Owen) for the Social Democratic party, in an article in The Times, that he favoured the abolition of mortgage income tax relief. There are some doubts on those Benches, and hon. Members need to clarify their views on the matter.

Mr. Biffen: I am a hardened realist on these matters, and I do not believe there is any prospect of those on the alliance Benches providing a debate in which they have to face reality. That is why we have to use the much less seductive opportunities of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. I realise that my hon. Friend has particular difficulties in that sense, and I am sorry about that.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Down at Wapping, about 500 people have had to be provided with passes to reach their homes. Murdoch has robbed 5,000 people of their jobs and of the compensation that should have followed. The Government provided Murdoch with taxpayers' money to build fortress Wapping. In view of those facts, why are the Government frightened to have a debate on those and similar issues?

Mr. Biffen: I do not suppose that those who are demonstrating outside the works at Wapping are now, or have been in the past, among the most sensitive members of the community. It seems to me that they have been tough and that they exploited their economic position when they were able to do so. However if the position is really as disastrous as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is quite clear what we should debate on Monday 21 April.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: When my right hon. Friend discusses the Leyland statement with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, will he seek his reaction to the fact that the JCB offer apparently falls outside the deadline set by the Secretary of State himself? Will he also ask the Secretary of State to clarify the importance of the integrity of Freight Rover within the Land Rover group?

Mr. Biffen: That point has already been raised this afternoon. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend is made aware of my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 699 on Government financial support for conductive education?
[That this House congratulates the BBC documentary team which produced 'Standing up for Joe' transmitted on Tuesday 1st April; is dismayed that the benefits of conductive education, having been recognised in the United Kingdom for over 20 years, have never been seriously studied with the intention of fully introducing them here; notes the signing of the Anglo-Hungarian cultural agreement on 21st March in Budapest which commits both sides to encouraging the conclusion of an agreement on co-operation between Birmingham University and the Teacher Training and Education Institute for the Motor Disabled; calls on the Government urgently to find the necessary £ ¼ million to ensure the successful start of that project and therefore to match the £200,000 promised by both Birmingham City Council and by Dr. Barnardo' s who, along with the Parkinson's Disease Society and others, have already committed themselves to the project's success; and firmly believes that conductive education could bring hope to the

thousands of families with children unable to control bodily movements because of damage or disease in the brain or central nervous system, that their children will not be denied the opportunity to learn to master their difficulties, and that conductive education introduced into Britain could emulate the successes of the Budapest clinic where over 70 per cent. of the children completing the course go on to normal state education.]
On 21 March the Government and the Hungarian Government signed a cultural agreement promising close co-operation on the setting up in Birmingham of an institute similar to that in Budapest which teaches brain-damaged children to sit, walk and talk.
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made, either during tomorrow's debate on disabled people's rights, or on Monday, on whether or not the Government will find the £250,000 necessary to match the £200,000 that Dr. Barnado's and Birmingham city council have given so that British kids, instead of having to raise money through charity and go to Hungary, can look forward to having their degenerative diseases being properly treated in this country?

Mr. Biffen: I realise that the hon. Gentleman feels that the matter is germane to tomorrow's debate. I will therefore draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in the country about the random selection of potential jurors? Does he not agree that many of those selected have not the intelligence to he members of juries, and do not even acknowledge that prisons deter those who are guilty? They are social misfits, to an extent. They do not believe in punishment. Should there not be a debate next week to consider how jurors are selected?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend's contribution is most interesting. I do not think that I can help him better than by saying that I will, of course, see that his remarks are referred to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Instead of curtailing discussion on the Social Security Bill next Tuesday, would it not be better to give that day's debate over to foreign affairs so that hon. Members could raise their concern about the bombing of the Island of Kaho'olawe in Hawaii, referred to in early-day motion 697?
[That this House, aware of the threat posed to the Hawaiian island of Kaho'olawe by bombing and shelling practice in the U.S. Navy's RIMPAC exercise, and aware of appeals by both the Hawaiian State Government and Hawaiian people for the protection of this sacred island with its many valuable historical sites and unique ecology, and knowing that the United States Government does not consider the bombing and shelling of Kaho' olawe to be essential to the RIMPAC exercise, and conscious that Australia, New Zealand and Japan have all refrained,from this target practice, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to consider withdrawing our naval forces or at least to instruct the Commander of the British contingent assigned to the RIMPAC exercise during Global '86 to refrain from bombing and shelling Kaho'olawe.]


A large number of hon. Members have also signed three early-day motions about central America—553, 619, and 677. These important matters need to be debated in the House.
[That this House recognises the need to achieve a peaceful solution to the problems of Central America; is aware of the importance of the recently signed Caraballeda Declaration calling on the end to all foreign aid to irregular forces operating in Central America, the progressive elimination of all foreign forces in the region and the reduction of arms acquisitions; is further aware of the repeated calls of the Contadora countries to cease United States funding of the Contras and of the well-documented, appalling human rights violations by the Contras; calls on the United States Congress to reject President Reagan's request for increased aid, including military aid, to the Contras; calls on the United Kingdom Government to join with other European Economic Community countries to oppose publicly the request for military and other aid; and calls on the United States Administration to stop all efforts designed to bring down the Nicaraguan Government and to resume direct bilateral talks with the Nicaraguan Government which have been unilaterally suspended by the United States of America.]
[That this House is alarmed at the recent revelation of activity by the Contras against the democratically elected government of Nicaragua; is appalled that on 25th January 1985 in Waslala, Zelaya, a group of civilian travellers and children were ambushed on their way to meet President Ortega; is horrified that on 29th June 1984, Paco Sivilla, a teacher from Brownback, was hunted by a group of Contras and his ears, tongue and private parts cut off before he was brutally murdered; is shocked that in July 1984 Adám Flores, a 70-year-old man, was murdered by a force of 70 Contras; further believes that these are a few examples of the most appalling murders by Contra forces against the people of Nicaragua; believes that President Reagan's attempts to send a further $100 million in aid to the Contras can only continue the war and result in further murders of the Nicaraguan people; and accordingly demands that Her Majesty's Government put all possible pressure on President Reagan to cease all support for the Contras and respect the territorial integrity and peaceful wishes of the people of Nicaragua.]
[That this House is alarmed that President Reagan is further attempting to send military aid to the Contra forces in their desperate struggle to destroy the democratic government of Nicaragua; congratulates those members of the United States House of Representatives who voted to prevent the granting of $100 million aid and calls upon

members of the United States Senate to do likewise; and further calls upon Her Majesty's Government to disassociate itself from United States policy in the region and declare its full recognition of the territorial integrity of Nicaragua.]

Mr. Biffen: Many hon. Members want an early debate on foreign affairs. However, in planning a programme, one must achieve a balance between general debates and specific commitments to legislation which must follow to some extent a pre-determined timetable based on the length of the Session.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Could my right hon. Friend give a little mild education to the Leader of the Opposition, and put right many campaigning organisations, by reminding them that a three-line Whip is a requirement to attend a debate, not a requirement to vote in a certain way? Members of this party, and probably of the Labour party, will vote according to their consciences. If the Patronage Secretary wants a three-line Whip, the reason may be that colleagues might otherwise be tempted to find more important business elsewhere.

Mr. Biffen: Well, there we are. My hon. Friend reminds me that Lord Hailsham reminded us during the Profumo debate that a three-line Whip was merely a summons to attend. In my experience, if one turns up on a three-line Whip and then goes off to the Tea Room, the Smoking Room or the Television Room, the Whips will not be entirely detached and other-wordly about the situation. The public know perfectly well what three-line Whips mean.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On five occasions over the past four months I have raised the question of kidnap insurance policies being sold in the City, and the fact that those so insured are at risk. We hear from Ireland that Mrs Jennifer Guinness has been kidnapped. As the Leader of the House cannot comment upon what is happening over there, does he not feel that it is time for a statement to be made at the Dispatch Box telling the House and the country what the Government intend to do to stop such insurance policies from being sold, as they act as an incentive?

Mr. Biffen: I have sat on this Bench and heard exchanges between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Five times, and no action.

Mr. Biffen: I did not necessarily hear five exchanges, but I can well believe it; it seemed like 50. I recollect that the hon. Gentleman was invited to produce further evidence.

Local Government Finance

The Minister for the Environment, Countryside and Local Government (Mr. William Waldegrave): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about a complex technical matter to do with the operation of the block grant system established by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. I hope that the House will bear with me.
Generally, block grant is paid to compensate authorities for differences in their expenditure needs and in their rateable resources. But, in addition, subsection (6)(a) of section 59 of the 1980 Act gives the Secretary of State a power to determine block grant multipliers to limit changes in the grant entitlements of individual authorities from year to year. In every year since 1981 my right hon. Friend and his predecessors have used this power to set safety nets to protect local authorities against undesirable losses in any one settlement. In two years it has also been used to set caps on increases, to prevent undesirable gains by some authorities at the expense of all other authorities.
Each year since 1981 my right hon. Friend and his predecessors have used the power to safety net grant losses arising from particular features of successive settlements. In 1981–82 a cap was also applied to grant gains resulting from the introduction of the new grant system.
As far as 1986–87 is concerned, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State made it clear in his provisional announcement to the House in July last year that he proposed to use these powers to restrict windfall gains resulting from the decision to dispense with expenditure targets. We also stated on many occasions our intention that the grant effects of abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan county councils should be neutral at ratepayer level. We gave effect to these intentions in the multipliers set out in the RSG Report which the House approved in January.
Thus, in each year since 1981 the Secretary of State interpreted the powers in subsection (6)(a) of section 59 of the 1980 Act in such a way as to limit certain factors affecting grant entitlements, but not others. For example, we have made changes to the way grant-related expenditure assessments are calculated—often as a result of representations made by local government. In every year, successive Secretaries of State have proposed that the effect of these changes should be mitigated by the setting of safety nets. What we have never sought or agreed to do is to protect authorities from the grant effects of their own expenditure decisions. It would have run counter to one central purpose of Government policy in this area to do so.
This approach had the general support of the local authority associations. It has been embodied in the RSG reports for each of the six years 1981–82 to 1986–87, all of which have been approved by this House. It has not previously been challenged.
However, this year for the first time a handful of authorities have questioned whether subsection (6)(a) of section 59 can be used to achieve the objective I have just described. They maintain that the Secretary of State's power is restricted to limiting changes in the overall amount of grant payable to an authority for one year compared with the previous year. One authority has

already taken court action on this, and I understand that a number of other authorities are considering similar action.
I must make it clear that I do not believe that the powers could be used in any sensible, praticable fashion under this alternative interpretation. For example, it would require the Secretary of State to include within any safety net the effect of grant reductions arising solely because authorities' own rateable resources had increased. It would also require the Secretary of State to take account of grant which authorities had lost solely as a result of their own expenditure decisions. That would he nonsense. No reasonable authority would expect the Secretary of State to operate the powers in this way.
Such an interpretation would cast doubt on the grant entitlement for every local authority for 1986–87 and for every previous year back to 1981–82, under the RSG settlements which the House has approved. It would clearly be most unsatisfactory if a procedure which has been followed since 1981–82 were to be overturned, particularly since throughout this period there has been a broad measure of agreement on what the subsection meant between the Department and the local authority associations, many of whose members would face wholly unmanageable losses of grant if any other interpretation of the 1980 Act were to become accepted. The Government are not prepared to allow that to happen and believe that we must take action to preserve the status quo.
Obviously the position must be clarified. The Government will therefore be bringing forward a short Bill during this Session of Parliament to remove any doubts about the interpretation of the Secretary of State's powers in relation to multipliers for past years and for the future.

Mr. Jack Straw: In the light of the news on the tapes earlier today that the Conservative spokesmen in Fulham were complaining that voting by Conservatives has been slow, the Opposition were wondering what secret weapon the Government would use to encourage voters to the polls. With this statement on block grant multipliers, we know what the secret weapon will be. The voters will be electrified and galvanised into voting, especially as Hammersmith and Fulham, which is controlled by Conservative and alliance councillors, has a multiplier of 0·701790, which the voters know means that they have been given extra grant by the Government.
Is the Minister aware that, behind the sheer farce to which successive Conservative Secretaries of State have reduced the system of rate support grant and behind the smokescreen of technicality which the Minister tried to raise today, his statement raises a serious constitutional issue—a bare-faced attempt by the Government to interfere with the judicial process? By this one-clause Bill Ministers propose to use their majority in the House to preempt decisions of the courts.
The Minister said that one authority had already begun court action. Will he confirm that the authority involved is Birmingham city council and that the use of the past tense in his statement in relation to the city council is wholly misleading, since Birmingham's case against the Secretary of State for the Environment is set down for a three-day oral hearing next Tuesday? Since the Government propose, whatever decision the courts may make, to overturn that decision retrospectively, will the


Department of the Environment seek to defend that action in the Divisional Court next Tuesday? How much is at stake for Birmingham city council and its ratepayers?
Occasionally, legislation has been introduced in the House retrospectively to change decisions of courts, for example, with the War Damage Act 1965 and the more recent decision by the Government to overturn the defeat that they suffered at the hands of the Greater London council over London Regional Transport. Can the Minister name one occasion on which a previous Government have introduced or announced the introduction of legislation during the pursuit of a case in the courts?
The Minister said that the approach which the Government had previously adopted has the general support of local authority associations and that there is a,
broad measure of agreement … between the Department and the local authority associations.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: That is a pack of lies.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend, from a sedentary position, says that that is a pack of lies, but you will not have heard that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Skinner: I will stand up and say it. It is a lie.

Mr. Straw: Does the Minister accept that this is grossly misleading and that the Association of County Councils has received legal advice in similar terms to that given to Birmingham city council and is supporting Birmingham city council's action and that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has submitted affidavits in support of Birmingham's position? Which local authority associations have expressed general support for the Government's approach?
The Minister claimed that the purpose of using multipliers was to introduce neutrality into the system, especially in relation to the abolition of the metropolitan county councils. Could he explain why the rates in the metropolitan councils have shot up by such vast amounts, for example, by 27 per cent. in West Yorkshire, when expenditure has increased by a tiny amount? Could he also explain why the Conservative-controlled district council of Gillingham in Kent has received so much rate support grant this year that it has not levied a rate at all? Not a single penny has been levied in Gillingham, despite a 25 per cent. increase in expenditure. Is that what the Minister means by "neutrality" when he talks of using these multipliers?
Will the Minister confirm that he failed to say in his statement that the one-clause Bill would have to be retrospective in effect to 1980? What does he think of the view of the former Secretary of State for the Environment—the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin)—who said in the House in 1965:
Retrospective legislation is a damned slippery slope. Let the House dig its heels in and say that it will have no more of it."—[Official Report, 2 March 1965; Vol. 707, c. 1264.]
Will the Minister confirm that this panic statement was rushed out only because the Department of the Environment has been advised that it will lose in court next week? It has been advised that it has been acting illegally for the past six years and it wishes to cover that up with a simple abuse of power. Is the Conservative view of freedom under the law the freedom to change the law whenever the Government expect defeat in the courts?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is good at getting into a rage, but this is not a good opportunity to do so. The case that is coming to court next week is the Birmingham city council case—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Government defend it?

Mr. Waldegrave: As to the handling of that case, consultations continue and we have not yet decided.
The hon. Member for Blackburn spoke about retrospection and was somewhat unwise to introduce an example of disgraceful retrospection—the War Damage Act 1965, which changed people's rights retrospectively. Our proposition would maintain the status quo. If, over the years, the hon. Gentleman, who is a sharp Member of the House, had noticed that the powers were in doubt, he would have drawn our attention to the matter, but he worked under this framework, as did all the local authority associations. All the representations that have been made to us—for example, by the Association of London Authorities—were made on the assumption that the powers meant what everyone thought they meant. There have been plenty of occasions when the House has acted to clarify the law and confirm people's understanding of it, for example, in many Finance Acts, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out in debates on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984. No authority will gain or lose money from the change that we shall make. They will all have the position, as they thought it to be, confirmed.
The hon. Gentleman introduced the subject of west Yorkshire. Rates are going up much too far in the successor councils in the west Yorkshire area, largely because the outgoing metropolitan council suppressed the rate last year to make an artificial increase this year. That was not very clever but it was trying to make a political point. In bringing forward this measure we shall simply be maintaining the status quo as all the practitioners in the field thought it to be.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is not the distinction a perfectly clear one—that it is perfectly legitimate to legislate in this way in order to implement settled expectations and it is unacceptable to legislate retrospectively to defeat settled expectations, as the Labour Government did under the War Damage Act 1965?

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend is right. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) rather shot himself in the foot by introducing the example of the War Damage Act 1965.

Mr. John Cartwright: Is the Minister aware that his statement today will confirm the widely held view that these famous multipliers are simply a sophisticated means of ensuring that the Government grant is shared out in whatever way suits the whims of the present occupier of the Secretary of State's office? How can he go on complaining, as he does, about the spending record of local government when he now accepts that there is such doubt about the legality of the block grant distribution that he is forced to come to the House of Commons to change the law after six years' operation?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree that the workings of the block grant system are now far too complicated to be maintained into the future, but I challenge the hon. Gentleman or anyone else to come up with any proposals


for reform other than those of my right hon. Friend who started the process whose results we now put before the House. We have proposals for simplification and I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's desire to see those brought forward.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that court action is threatened not only by Birmingham council, of which I am still a city councillor, but by other Labour-controlled local authorities, and will he join me in congratulating those Labour-controlled local authorities on their new-found respect for so-called Tory judges and their determination to abide by a court order if they can get it? Will he further agree that the current state of the law is intolerable and that without legislation all we shall have will be a muddle and the fiddling around of grants going back to 1981? His action is wise, necessary and will be welcome.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is right. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is serious in opposing the legislation. There will be just as many Labour losers as Conservative losers. It would be almost impossible to predict who would be the losers if the system had to be redone back to 1981. I do not think that is what he wants. He is entitled to have his day of teasing me across the Dispatch Box, as he is good at doing, but the serious matter here is, as my hon. Friend says, that it must be a matter of good administration to clarify the law in this area.

Ms. Clare Short: Is not the truth of the matter that Birmingham has discovered that the Government are cheating us out of a considerable sum of money and, having been found out, the Government are changing the law and that is outrageous? How much money is at stake? The Government are entitled to change the law for the future and to make whatever settlements should be made about the misapplication of the law in the past, but to move in quickly and change the law before the case comes to court is an outrageous way to proceed. How much is Birmingham losing by this action?

Mr. Waldegrave: The trouble is that the hon. Lady is wrong. If it were to be proven that Birmingham's interpretation was right, Birmingham's starting position this year would he different, and for the year before, and for the year before, and for the year before that. So goodness knows whether Birmingham would gain or lose in the end.

Sir Dudley Smith: I appreciate the difficult and intricate nature of the block grant multipliers, but does not the situation underline yet again the need for a full reorganisation of local government finance and the raising of rates? Does my hon. Friend agree that the sooner we move to that, the sooner we shall get away from this position?

Mr. Waldegrave: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Is not the fact of the matter in plain English that the Government have been advised that they are fiddling the books and to that extent they have been caught with their fingers in the till? Is it not the case that, as a result of the decision, Birmingham is set to lose about £7 million? Will the Minister repeat from the Dispatch Box that the effect of

abolition on ratepayers should be neutral and then acknowledge Birmingham's case that abolition is costing city ratepayers money?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is good rhetoric but poor logic. If the hon. Gentleman considers the matter a little further, he will find that neither he nor I nor anybody else can predict what the final outcome will be for Birmingham because there will be complete uncertainty about starting points over the past four years. A large number of other authorities would lose and I have no doubt that many would write to the hon. Gentleman and object and then he would be in some difficulty.

Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that the working of the multiplier this year in some areas has produced nonsense? Does he further agree that there is a feeling of unfairness among many small district councils in east Yorkshire, which, having done everything that the Government have asked and kept spending down—not only last year but, in the case of Holderness in my constituency, for nearly 10 years—have lost grant? Do I take it that what he said today will do nothing to remove the injustice that those councils have suffered this year?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am aware that several of my hon. Friends are unhappy with the rate support grant settlement this year, but I regret that they cannot look to the proposed Bill to give them any relief. We shall be confirming the RSG settlement this year as it stands.

Mr. Skinner: Is not the real scandal that the Government—a Government who believe in law and order—have now been found out by Birmingham and are intent on being cruel and vindictive to the people of Birmingham, and, who knows, many others who might follow in their wake, which sought to improve its balances by several million pounds in order to provide services for the old and disabled? The Government, who do not care, are so hell bent on stopping that that they are not even prepared to allow the law courts to proceed in order to find a settlement. Retrospective legislation—the Minister ought to be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Waldegrave: Even the hon. Gentleman's unequalled capacity to discover outrage under every stone has been over-tested in this matter. It is not such an exciting matter as he hopes.

Mr. John Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the ritual protests about retrospection from the Opposition Benches, the vast majority of sensible authorities will be relieved to have the protection that he is proposing against the retrospective overturning of a settlement going back as far as 1981? Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that all local authorities are made fully aware of the consequences of the course of action urged from the Opposition Front Bench which would turn local government finance into chaos for six years back?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is exactly what, as I understand it, the Opposition are proposing. I have more respect for the hon. Member for Blackburn than to think that he is seriously proposing that. There would be a tremendous caterwauling from all the losers if the other interpretation were to succeed. I have no doubt that we would then be urged to bring some clarity and certainty into the situation.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Is not the synthetic and bogus hysteria which the hon. Member for


Blackburn (Mr. Straw) tried to generate unsuccessfully in his remarks somewhat sad? Is not the reality that if the hon. Gentleman were sitting in the place of my hon. Friend the Minister he would have attempted to make exactly the same statement, if not with the same force, clarity and eloquence?

Mr. Waldegrave: Conservative Members need no lectures, certainly not from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), about retrospective legislation, since I believe that he is keen on retrospective legislation for a number of cases. Unfortunately, this is not retrospective legislation of the kind that he likes. As has been said, this confirms people's expectations about what the situation is and was and does not change them.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: While settlements will be re-established by the new Bill, does not my hon. Friend agree that it will be irresponsible of any of the other local authorities now to consider any further kind of legal action against the Government? Will he also confirm that in the past four or five years the local authority associations have gained quite a lot under the old system? Lastly, will he look again at the multiplier for Leicester to consider whether a reduced amount could be given to Leicester because, of course, it has overspent for so long?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend never misses an opportunity to have a crack at the villains who run Leicester, and I congratulate him on taking yet another opportunity to get the political villains, as he would see them. The fact of the matter is that this legislation, rather less exciting than had been hoped for by the Opposition, simply confirms the situation as we have all believed it to be.

Orders of the Day — Airports Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We had the debate on the Eyre report at the beginning of last year and on the White Paper in June last year, and then we had Second Reading of the Bill followed by a full Committee stage but without a guillotine or timetable motion, and a very full day yesterday on Report, as I am sure hon. Members will agree. I think that nobody can say that the policy has not been subjected to major and continuing parliamentary scrutiny and voting.
The main actors in this long drama have had very full speaking parts. There were those who come from areas where airports are a matter of burning political controversy, including my hon. Friends the Members for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), in the Stansted area, and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and many others from the north-west who have been firm advocates of the interests of Manchester airport. We have also had represented the interests of the airlines and those who are passionately concerned in their affairs. My hon. Friends the Members for South Hams (Mr. Steen), for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) have all played a full part in the drama.
These varying interests have come and weaved together and split apart, appeared in various costumes and disguises, passed through sinister phases of wetness and dryness, and they have been the main actors, but there have also been minor characters who have merely sat around the stage, listened and waited—the hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), my hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for aviation, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and myself—who have merely been attendants of this great drama. I pay tribute to them all—except perhaps myself—for their steadfastness under fire, for their skill in debate, repeating arguments, if I may say so, over and over again with ever-increasing skill and conviction and for their ability to stay up late at night.
We come now to the epilogue. The Bill is almost identical to the proposals set out in the White Paper of June 1985. It has been improved in detail in debate and tested in the Lobbies—both the Division Lobbies and the commercial lobbies—but it has emerged virtually unscathed. Perhaps I may be forgiven for saying, almost sotto voce, that we got it right at the beginning.
One of the main concerns in the debates has been the effects on local authority airports of privatising the British Airports Authority as a whole. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have claimed that we are seeking to privatise a monopoly which would be able to crush the


development of other airports, notably Manchester. Hon. Members accepted the logic in aviation terms of keeping the BAA's Scottish airports in common ownership and operating them as a system. I believe that the same logic applies even more forcefully to the BAA's south-east airports. If Heathrow is to remain the world's leading international airport, which we all hope it will, while continuing to serve the needs of smaller domestic operators, and if Gatwick is to develop as a European hub, we need to maintain the south-east airports as a system with co-ordinated development and operations.
The question we have debated is whether the new owners of BAA will be able to use their power to take unfair advantage of competitors and to price them out of the market. Under the Bill, we have ensured that they cannot. The Bill spells out in detail the range of regulatory measures available to the Civil Aviation Authority which will enable it to prevent unfair competition between airports. I believe that whatever happens in the London system will make little or no difference to what happens in the north-west, and vice versa.
Nevertheless, the Bill incorporates protection against predatory pricing that could harm another airport's business. With the amendments that we introduced on Report, that protection has been strengthened to give a firmer reassurance still that such competition as there is between airports in different parts of the United Kingdom will be open and, above all, fair. Manchester airport, in particular, will have no grounds to fear unfair competition from a privatised BAA, and most certainly it has no need to fear that predatory pricing at Stansted will harm its business. If a complaint about predatory pricing is made to the CAA, it will judge pricing policies at Stansted as if it were a free-standing airport. I believe that we have the best of both worlds. The United Kingdom will keep the economic and aviation benefits of a strong south-east airport system. The regulatory mechanisms in the Bill will ensure that that strength is not used to the detriment of sound airport development in other parts of the United Kingdom but is targeted towards beating our European competitors who are always trying to muscle in on our business.
I am sure that the privatisation of the BAA will bring very real benefits for the airline industry and its customers. There will be greater freedom for management—for instance, access to private capital—and private sector operation, combined with the regulatory system which we are proposing, will encourage more innovative management and lead to efficiency gains and greater responsiveness to customers.
These are not the only benefits. Privatisation will also further our objective of creating wider share ownership. This will be an important factor in the arrangements for the flotation. Employees will be encouraged to take a stake in their own future by purchasing shares in their company. The details of the employee share scheme are still being discussed, but I would expect it to offer benefits on a similar scale to those offered to British Telecom employees—£70 worth of free shares per employee; two free shares for each one bought, up to a total of £200 worth of free shares; and a 10 per cent. discount on up to £2,000 worth of shares—as well as priority rights of application for full price shares. Together with ongoing schemes, to be introduced by the company, this will encourage employees to participate directly in their company's future profitability.
Major local authority airports will also benefit from the Bill. They are, in most cases, substantial and successful businesses, and the Bill will ensure that they can be operated as such. They will be free to seek services from whoever offers the best deal rather than being locked in to services provided by local authorities. Their management will be able to operate with far more commercial freedom and be less subject to the whims of local vested political interests.
Local authority airports, such as Manchester, East Midlands and Bristol, have a record of rapid expansion in recent years. They have capacity for further expansion and we have undertaken to continue to encourage further development in response to demand. We believe that the opportunites offered by the Bill, including the opportunities—I stress "opportunities", for we intend to encourage, not compel—for involving the private sector in the management of these airports, in the provision of capital for their development and in their ownership, if the present owners wish to take those opportunities, will stimulate and encourage that expansion. That can only be to the benefit of the localities and the regions concerned.
In contrast with this attractive and exciting prospect, the Opposition have typically sought to preserve the status quo. That would not help regional airports, any more than the Opposition helped them when they were in office. We have massively increased the capital allocations for regional airports, and, by liberalising aviation markets, we have produced a very large increase in flights from regional airports. The Bill lays the foundations for their continued future business development and success.
As the airline industry grows, airport capacity will be increasingly under strain. The fallback powers in part III are needed to ensure the balanced development of the finite airport resources we have and to provide effective means of dealing with problems that may arise at congested airports.
The White Paper drew up the agenda for air traffic regulation at airports. The major need at present is for traffic distribution policies for the London airports system. In accordance with that White Paper commitment, we have sought the advice of the Civil Aviation Authority, which in turn has consulted widely—some 322 separate bodies—on a variety of options. The authority is now in the second phase of consultation, having invited scrutiny of its draft conclusions and recommendations. The CAA's draft advice has naturally generated some strong feelings. It would not be right for me to comment upon them now. This is only draft advice. It would be quite wrong for me to comment on a draft report which may yet be materially changed in the light of comments, suggestions and recommendations received from consultees. The Government have no intentions of prejudging the authority's judgment by taking a premature view.
Let me re-emphasise our overweening undertaking that traffic distribution rules will be introduced only if and when and where they are clearly needed. We are in favour of solutions emerging naturally wherever that is possible. We shall continue to encourage solutions of the industry's own making, and we shall not—it has never been our intention—frame the traffic distribution rule powers in such a way as to force an airline to serve a particular airport.
The reserve powers in part III of the Bill extend the duties of the CAA. The authority is charged with advising


the Government on traffic distribution rules, air traffic movement limits and slot allocation schemes, and it would also be for the CAA, following a direction under clause 30, to prepare a slot allocation scheme if one were needed. It is appropriate, therefore, that the CAA should operate under special objectives and guidelines in undertaking its functions under clauses 28, 29 and 30. Clause 31 is designed to create those guidelines.
Although clause 31 has not attracted the same attention as some of its near neighbours in this part of the Bill, it is none the less pivotal in creating the framework within which the CAA will be able to offer balanced advice. Clause 31 requires the CAA, in giving advice to the Secretary of State on traffic distribution rules, ATM limits and slot allocation schemes, and, in preparing such schemes where the authority has been so directed, to take account of and to have regard to a number of very important matters. These are the international obligations of the United Kingdom which the Government notify to the CAA under clause 31; the Government's advice on international relations considerations; the need to secure the sound development of civil aviation in the United Kingdom; the interests of users of air transport services; and policy considerations notified to the authority by the Government.
I should hope that our broad purpose in framing those matters, which are to be taken into account, is clear: to protect our international interests—remembering always that the bulk of the United Kingdom civil aviation industry operates in the international dimension—and to secure the right deal for our civil aviation industries and their customers. I would ask the House to bear in mind, too, the policy considerations which we set out to the CAA in asking it to undertake its current review of traffic distribution in the London area.
These were to make efficient use of existing and planned airport facilities and available air space; to enable air services to be operated where they best meet the needs of the travelling public; to support the objective of increasing competition between airlines, in the interests of users; to ensure satisfactory access to Heathrow and Gatwick for domestic services; to maintain London's position as a major international centre, and within that to maintain Heathrow as London's main scheduled service airport while continuing to develop Gatwick as an effective second hub; and to avoid undue dislocation to the airlines using London's airports.
I think that the House may find in these objectives an important earnest of the manner of policy considerations which may be appropriate in the context of clause 31 and which may therefore condition the advice which the CAA offers.
Part IV of the Bill has also aroused a good deal of interest. We have made clear the details of the new regulatory regime on the face of the Bill, so that everyone—the CAA as regulator, airport operators, airlines and passengers—knows exactly where he stands. The Bill makes clear the types of anti-competitive and monopolistic practice that will not be tolerated, and it gives the CAA sufficient powers not only to stamp out such practices but to provide appropriate remedies for anyone who has suffered from them.
The Bill provides the statutory underpinning for the future of our airports policy. It provides powers for the

Government to fulfil their strategic responsibilities towards one of our major national resources; it provides the opportunities for airports to reap the benefits of a commercial and businesslike approach to airport management; and, not least, it provides strong and continuing protection against monopoly abuse for the airlines and passengers our airports serve. The Bill will ensure that the United Kingdom's airport industry continues to be the envy of the world.
In reinforcement of what I said at the beginning of my speech—that perhaps we have got it right—this is the first time that I have made a speech on airports policy when no right hon. or hon. Gentleman has sought to interrupt me.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to those right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in our numerous debates both in Committee and on Report. The discussions have been detailed and sometimes very hard hitting, but they have always been good natured. I think that we all enjoyed the Committee stage, especially when we learnt about the personal hygiene habits of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), who told us about the frequency of his baths. But that enjoyment paled into insignificance because of the Opposition's disappointment that in Committee no major concession was made by the Government. We were also unable in Committee to inflict any major defeat on the Government. However, last night the Whips were very worried when, at about 11 o'clock, it looked as though the Government were facing their first defeat on the Floor of the House since they came to power in 1979.
When the Second Reading vote took place, Government Back Benchers went into the "Aye" Lobby with varying degrees of support, ranging from qualified enthusiasm to downright scepticism and extreme scepticism about the effects of the Bill. Since then the doubting Thomases have multiplied—so much so that the sceptics on the Government Back Benches are now in the majority. I do not know how they will be able to steel and brace themselves to go into the Lobby and vote for the Third Reading. They know as well as I and as well as the Secretary of State that the Bill's contents fail to match up either to the Secretary of State's rhetoric about the virtues of private ownership or to any kind of rational airports policy operating in the national interest.
Part I sets out the manner in which the British Airports Authority is to be sold off to the private sector. In so far as the British Airports Authority's seven airports are to be kept together as a system of airports, I welcome the fact that they are to be held together in a holding company. It makes sense to keep them together, whatever the ownership of the BAA may be and however much we may disagree about its ownership.
Part I is insufficient to promote a coherent airports policy. No one is surprised at that because we know quite well that the Government have no airports policy. Part II sets out the first stage of what the Government intend to be the privatisation of local authority owned airports. It will compel airports in the local authority sector to become Companies Act companies if they qualify with an annual turnover of more than £1 million.
In so far as there is any relationship between parts I and II of the Bill, the Government are forced to fall back on mouthing the empty phrase that they are to stimulate efficiency and competition. Even this Secretary of State very occasionally faces reality. The result of facing reality is that parts III and IV set out controls over competition policy. The Secretary of State has direct control of traffic distribution rules. He has the power to limit aircraft movements at certain airports, to direct the Civil Aviation Authority to prepare schemes for allocating capacity at airports and to subject the airports to economic regulation. He may control landing charges. Then there are the duties of the Civil Aviation Authority, and the references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. These add up to a truly labyrinthine system of checks, balances and controls.
I wonder who drafted the Bill. Did the Secretary of State himself supervise the drafting of parts I and II, then go off on holiday and discover on his return that the whole thing had been tampered with and that his political philosophy had been distorted, either by his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary or by his civil servants who had even more sense? Whoever it was, the fact is that the Bill will prevent competition.
However much the Secretary of State argues that his regulatory powers will he applied in what his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary always refers to as a "de minimis" fashion, it is also true that the construction of the Bill will affect the sale price. At this stage in the Bill's progress we have the right to know what price the Government expect to receive for the sale of the British Airports Authority. Throughout the proceedings we have asked the Government to come clean and tell us what they expect to get but they have refused to give us even an inkling of the expected sale price. This reticence may be compared to the total retreat of a tortoise into its shell.
The Minister must now tell us what the price is likely to be. It is a matter not of principle but of practice, because I am sure that the House would not wish to give the Bill a Third Reading if the BAA were to be sold for a fraction of its true value. I doubt that even the driest Tory Member would find it easy to agree with such a profligate treatment of public assets. The Minister must give a direct answer about what price he expects to get.

Mr. Ridley: Since the hon. Gentleman asks that question in order that he can compare the figure with what he thinks the authority is worth, would he now tell us what he thinks we ought to get for it?

Mr. Robert Hughes: I have been trying to find out what the price might be. I read carefully the report prepared by Kitcat and Aitken which examined all aspects and policies of the BAA and what it might fetch. Although it has been slightly revised since that stage—November or December 1985—the report concluded that it was impossible to assess the figure. It is a different matter, however, for the Secretary of State. If he has embarked on this exercise without having considered what the sale price might be and with no expectation of what he might get, such action amounts to dereliction of duty. The Secretary of State will not admit to that.
The fact is that estimates vary. The lowest figure that I have seen or heard is £400 million. Some estimates suggest between £500 million and £600 million. One estimate, which I am sure is wildly inaccurate, is that the Government might get as much as £1 billion for the

authority. As in all such matters, the truth probably lies between the two extremes. We must ask what the Secretary of State wants. We must match his expectations with the actual figure if the sale goes ahead. I am not convinced that it is such a good proposition. I think that when he comes to float BAA he will not find as many willing buyers as he supposes.
I have two points to make about part II of the Bill, in relation to local authority airports. The first is a passing reference to the exchanges today and yesterday about the issue of hybridity, raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I am not challenging Mr. Speaker's ruling, but the issue that was raised is that the question of hybridity is not a clear-cut one. We ought to encourage the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that the matter should go to the Select Committee on Procedure, so that it may examine the question of hybridity. I hope that the Government will want to follow that course.
The second issue is the manner in which local authority airports are being treated. The Bill compels airports with an annual turnover of £1 million or more to become Companies Act companies. Clauses 20 and 21 make it clear that any capital raised by a local authority by way of a loan from any source, or capital raised from the sale of equity shareholding, will count as prescribed expenditure under the Government's control of local authorities for as long as the majority' ownership rests with the local authority or a consortium of local authorities. That will directly affect the ability of these airports to compete on fair terms with the BAA airports.
This distortion of competition is yet another facet of the Government's failure to have a national airports policy. I go further and say that it is yet another facet of the Government's pathological distrust and dislike of local government. That is bad enough, but the real intention is to compel local authorities to divest themselves of their majority shareholding and to abandon their own policy of objectives, in order to follow his own. The Secretary of State is using extortion and blackmail to impose his will on democratically elected bodies which have successfully provided airport services for the benefit of their own areas and for that of the nation. He appeared in his speech to accept that local authority airports have, by and large, been successful. Many have been a success even by the Secretary of State's standards of commercial interest. What he seeks to do here is quite disgraceful. The Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is leaving the Chamber. He advised me earlier that he might have to leave while was speaking, so I am grateful that he warned me. I see that he is staying. I am even more grateful. In setting out his objectives which have been written into the Bill, the Secretary of State told us that the Bill was part of an overall design to further share ownership by employees and the public at large. We know that the Secretary of State puts that forward with his tongue in his cheek, because he spends all his spare time debunking the currently fashionable Tory idea of "caring capitalism".
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but no one is entitled to his own facts. I commend that to the Secretary of State because his opinions are not borne out by the facts. Perhaps I can give a brief example of the way in which his objectives, however much he believes in them, do not


match up to the facts. When British Aerospace was floated, the total number of shareholders was 157,829. Twelve months later the total number had gone down dramatically to 27,175. Of the total flotation, 44,000 shareholders held fewer than 100 shares. One year later only 3,279 held fewer than 100 shares.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Such figures are useless unless we know why they have changed and why people bought or sold shares. Just to give such figures is meaningless.

Mr. Hughes: The figures are not meaningless. The point I am demonstrating is that the aim of having wider share ownership has not been met because the number of people who bought shares and who have held on to them has reduced dramatically. At the time of the flotation there was only one shareholder who held over 1 million shares; 12 months later 13 shareholders held over 1 million shares. Clearly shareholding has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and in bigger and bigger holdings. That is the reality of privatisation. The theory of a wider share-owning public is bunkum in practice. People have sold their shares at a profit because the Government have never got the sale price right in any of the privatisation sales. They have always sold at well below a reasonable price which the market could bear. Immediately after the sale the shares jumped in price and people sold to take a quick profit. If that is what the Secretary of State wants, that is up to him. But he should not pretend that the objective of a wider share-owning public has been met, because obviously it has not.
The Bill will do nothing for the balanced development of BAA airports or of local authority airports, or of the combined airports system. It will do nothing to encourage better facilities at airports or traffic growth. If its effects were to be as neutral as I have described, perhaps we could dismiss the Bill as being irrelevant, redundant and of no account; we could say that it is another piece of legislation that is cluttering up the statute book. But it is much worse. The Bill will have harmful effects on airports policy and on customer services. It is no accident that it will damage the wellbeing of employees of the BAA and of local authority airports alike.
We believe in encouraging municipal enterprise. The proper place for a national transport infrastructure is within the public sector. That is where the airports should be. If the Bill has any merit—I have not so far found any real merit in it—its construction will allow us to apply our transport policy for aviation and airports quickly and efficiently when we become the Government. However speedily we return to Government, even that is not enough to persuade me or my colleagues that the Third Reading should not be opposed. Therefore, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby tonight in voting against the Bill.

Mr. James Hill: I shall not keep the House very long because this is a short debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear in his opening address that the Bill is balanced. All the vicissitudes of the commercial market have been covered. When the Government are selling off a monopoly, there has to be a serious braking system on any excesses by that

monopoly. Anyone who has been involved in aviation or who has been employed at an airport will realise that that is one of the most monopolistic areas of commerce.
So far the debate has been brought down by the Opposition spokesman to a question of how much we shall get for the airports. In every debate about turning a public holding over to a private company that issue comes up. The system of the market place is that at the beginning many people invest in an institution because they are told that they will make a profit; that applies to the employees of whatever institution is involved. That is human nature. Again it is human nature that if one is a little hard-pressed, as many people may be after some time, they will try to divest themselves of their shares at the profit-taking time.
I agree that we cannot float a public sector company and expect to have 3 million individual shareholders for ever. That is not the point. Conservative Government policy is that shareowning should become more widespread. There is no reason why the 3 million shareholders in, say, British Telecom should not have taken their profit. Although they may have gone out of one company, they may well be enticed into another company such as British Airways or the British Airports Authority.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Will the hon. Gentleman take on board the other point that in many cases municipal airports have suffered great debts which have been borne by the ratepayers but if those airports become profitable the local authorities will get no recompense for the public money which they have to put in? Therefore, the gain will go to those who have speculated accurately with their own money. They, not the local authority, will get the bargain.

Mr. Hill: I do not think there is anything in the Bill to prevent those ratepayers buying shares in the BAA public sector company.
The position in Southampton is different. The airfield, Eastleigh, which was owned by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, was sold to the private sector just after the war. Although it has not made much progress as a regional airport, it has remained as an airport that serves not only the south, but the Channel Islands. It has also accrued to itself many industrial complexes on the airport site. So it is job-promoting as well as being an airfield. Many of the local government airfields have failed on that score. Local authorities have not encouraged their airport managers to examine the commercial side of running the airports by attracting industrial development on their periphery.
On the dissolution of BAA, we should say today, if we never say again, that the British Airports Authority has done an extremely good job. I am proud of the airports that I go through, such as Gatwick and Heathrow. At Heathrow what I knew as a market garden before the war became an airfield with a series of caravans. The expertise, administration and know-how of the BAA have turned it into a great capital asset. The Opposition will say immediately that that involved taxpayers' money. When we talk about the price that the Government will receive; we can only thank the British Airports Authority for slowly but surely bringing that capital asset forward and enabling it to compete with other major airports throughout the world. No one who has seen over the new terminal 4 can say anything other than that it is a very good terminal which will provide competitive services for the next five to 10 years.
The monopolistic nature of a British airport is defined by the control of the Civil Aviation Authority. In British aviation—this may apply to other countries—a company is only as efficient as the CAA will allow it to be. I am thinking particularly of a flight which I shall have to make in two weeks' time to Venice on parliamentary business. That is one of the things that we all have to do from time to time. It will mean leaving my home for several days.
I have to drive to London airport, leave the car there and fly to Venice, but the only service back to the United Kingdom goes into Gatwick. So a man with a car at Heathrow arrives at Gatwick, with all the problems of travel in between.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is possible to take a helicopter between the two airports?

Mr. Hill: That raises another point of contention which has been mentioned several times. First, when it was in being the normal, impoverished hon. Member could not afford to pay and, secondly, it no longer exists as a service. Therefore, we now rely on the coaches on the M25 in order to get back to our cars.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents will all wish him an extremely happy time in Venice provided that on his return journey he goes from Gatwick to Heathrow via the M25 and does not attempt to carry out that part of his journey by helicopter?

Mr. Hill: I am only too pleased to agree to that because I have no other option. Although I know that the infrastructure between Gatwick and Heathrow is now so much better, it is a problem of time and hon. Members are busy people and have too much to do in the course of their long working week.
Having said that, I must get back to the issue of the CAA and transfer to the private sector. This is just one item in a continuing programme which this very able Conservative Government have brought into being. I am particularly looking forward to the distribution of these shares and, as an ex-employee of British Overseas Airways, to the distribution of shares to British Airways. These are not strange things to the electorate. We have declared our intention that, apart from one or two small institutions, we are for giving the country the opportunity to pull back some of the capital assets, on which there has been little or no return. Indeed, in some cases they are costing the taxpayer money. I believe that we are doing a splendid job in our overall programme of privatisation.

Mr. Ridley: I hestitate to ask my hon. Friend this because I might be accused of doing a "commercial", but does he realise that the bus company which provides the service from Gatwick to Heathrow is for sale?

Mr. Hill: That would be a very expensive way for me to get back from Gatwick on the night of my return, but I am sure that a consortium of world travellers within the House could consider it.
Members of the Opposition forget too quickly the privatisation success of the past. They all know about the National Freight Consortium, but they try to avoid talking about it, and there have been many other successes. I am thinking particularly of the Associated British Ports flotation, which was a magnificent success. I know that I am drifting a little, having gone from airports to seaports,

Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I ask the Opposition to look at the success stories, of which there are many, and I am sure that the present case will be even more successful.
We had a debate yesterday on amendments and a was quite horrified by what some of my hon. Friends were saying in their attempt to end the duty-free shops, which, as was rightly pointed out, are a crucial part of this commercial undertaking. I am sure that anyone who purchases a group of airports such as this will be delighted not only to keep the existing duty-free shops but to extend them further. It is only too apparent when one goes abroad that certainly the French at Charles de Gaulle airport have the right idea with their duty-free shops. They have parades of shops at which everything imaginable is sold. This is what the airport traveller wishes. He may be early for his flight or his flight may be delayed, and he has time to kill. I see no reason why an airport authority should not extend this to providing a cinema or a night club. Should I go further, indeed? Perhaps I had better not.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman approve of the practice at some German airports of having porn sex cinemas—which, I hasten to add, I have seen only from the outside?

Mr. Hill: I do not think that the weary traveller should attempt to do anything that would take away his last remaining strength, because, as we all know, it is not just a matter of reaching one's destination. One then has to take a coach for a long distance, and by the time one reaches one's hotel one has forgotten about those delights that had been suggested by the Opposition.
Nevertheless, when one puts one's mind to what can be done regarding facilities at airports, it is clear that the BAA has only scratched the surface. We are perhaps underprovided with hotels at some of these airport sites, and I believe that prices are a bit too high because there is no competition. Certainly an impoverished hon. Member cannot pay £60 to £80 for a night's board and lodging—without breakfast, I might add. So I think that more development, and certainly enterprising development, will be the order of the day.
I have no reason to suggest, and I am sure that no hon. Member would suggest, that anyone who could get together a consortium capable of competing for these airports would be a fool. He would have to make a very careful commercial assessment. He would also have to make a very careful assessment of how he was going to attract airlines to his consortium on a permanent basis.
The grave weakness of most of the speeches when we are discussing privatisation is that we talk about these men as though they are mad speculators of some kind who will come in with £1,000 million and buy, and then sell the next day. They are very clever, highly advised members of the City, and the City itself will look at this with great favour.
I have only one regret—that I did not spend some considerable time in the Committee. I feel that I could have kept the Committee going a little longer, if it had been the wish of the Whips to put me on it. Nevertheless, this is a very interesting Bill and I wish it every success.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) said that he would be brief. I hope to be very brief.
When this Bill had its Second Reading it was rightly opposed in the strongest terms by the Opposition. We took the view that at best it was irrelevant and at worst prejudicial to the needs of Britain's civil aviation industry. It was a view shared by many Conservative Members. They made plain their view on Second Reading in January, and again last night on Report, that there were many deficiencies that required correction before the Bill goes to another place. Yet, in spite of all our efforts to introduce some consistency and common sense into the Secretary of State's attitude to the Bill, it is largely unamended. All the deficiencies and the inconsistencies remain.
I now want briefly to identify some of the major inadequacies. Part I of the Bill will seriously prejudice the development of airports outside the south-east. Notwithstanding all the Secretary of State's well publicised promises to eliminate subsidies to Stansted, there is now no doubt that the subsidising of that airport will continue on a massive scale for many years to come. Leaving aside what was said from the Opposition side in the debate last night on subsidising Stansted, he was brilliantly exposed from his own side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman's stance, coupled with the inherent weaknesses of part IV of the Bill, make it abundantly clear that his own 1985 White Paper, which emphasised the importance of fair and equal competition between airports, is nothing more than a "paper policy".
It was shameful of the Secretary of State to make no attempt last night to answer in any way the many serious questions put to him. He portrayed an ignorance which right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House found staggering. He is obviously quite incapable of grasping the simple point that being able to see a subsidy does not make it go away. Nor does it become any less damaging to airports outside the south-east. If the right hon. Gentleman finds my judgment harsh, let him read in cold print what his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said of him in his speech on my amendments last night. The hon. Gentleman said of the Secretary of State's policy that it is
… detrimental to good regional development in Britain.
I believe that the policy stinks. The north of Britain is woefully economically deprived. There is a huge economic gulf between the south-east and the north. Why should people be artificially attracted to airports such as Stansted, which they do not wish to use, when the north is crying out for jobs and the infrastructural development that is associated with airports?"—[Official Report, 9 April 1986; Vol. 95, c. 257.]
I have never heard a more scorching criticism of a Minister from the Benches behind him.
The so-called commitment to introduce private capital into regional airport development has also been exposed as a total and utter sham. The right hon. Gentleman's commitment is so strong that the effect of part II of the Bill will be to bring under strict central Government control an independent trading company which is now operating in the open market.
The Secretary of State referred last night to the "Manchester airport authority". He might have to swallow hard but must now face up to the fact that his nomenclature is wrong. As usual, he is out of date. Manchester Airport plc, to give the enterprise its true title, commenced trading on 1 April. It is operating independently of the local

authorities and the Government. For the time being at least it does not need the support of the Government. Not that it ever did.
To listen to the Secretary of State last night, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you might have thought that he was the sole author of Manchester airport's success. We were told that he has been falling over himself to support the airport. If that is right, why did it take over four years for the Government and the Civil Service to acknowledge the airport's real status? Until January 1985 they were arguing that there was no major role for Manchester airport to fulfil in the national context. If the Secretary of State has been handing out licences enabling airlines to operate services into Manchester like toffees, why did it necessitate lengthy and major cross-party parliamentary campaigns to support almost every licence application that has been before him?
I pay tribute tonight to Conservative Members who joined hands with us in campaigning for the new routes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): I cannot contain myself much longer. I have never heard a speech which is so distorted and biased, but I shall make my own speech later. I can answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. He asked why it took campaigns for the licences to be granted, and the answer is that most of those campaigns started well before the bodies concerned had ever approached the Government for the licences.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is clearly stung by my quote from the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood. The Minister said he had never heard a more distorted presentation. I hope he agrees with me that there was never a more scorching criticism of any Front Bench than that which was delivered by his hon. Friend last night.
On the question of licences, let us take the case of Singapore. There was active all-party campaigning to achieve the new route from Manchester to Singapore. There were complaints from Singapore about the attitude of the Department of Transport. The Minister must appreciate that hon. Members on both sides of the House have done much more than some Ministers to promote the expansion of Manchester international airport.

Mr. Michael Spicer: rose—

Mr. Morris: I am not giving way again. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to reply to the debate. I hope that he will then acknowledge the strenuous efforts of hon. Members on both sides of the House to promote the development of Manchester international airport. If the Secretary of State had been allowed to have his way over 12 months ago, British Airways would not now be operating out of Manchester.
The airport's success is exclusively attributable to the people of Manchester and the vigour and resourcefulness of the airport's local authority owners. It is those qualities which will again be put to the test by the Secretary of State's attitude to Manchester and the regional airports. They must now compete with a subsidised Stansted and with their hands tied behind their backs. It is, of course, an unequal contest. Yet it is one that we must face up to, and we shall. Indeed there is no alternative, because the airport is our principal hope of rejuvenating our devastated regional economy.
On Second Reading there were Conservative Members who made it clear, that while favouring the principle of the


Bill, they were deeply concerned about the detail. The Bill will leave this House tonight for the other place in broadly the same form as it was introduced. It is a bad Bill and it will make bad law. Everyone's concerns about the Bill remain. I wonder how many Conservative Members will join us in opposing its passage this evening.

Mr. Toby Jessel: As always, I listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), particularly when he spoke about Manchester airport. All of us, including those of us who represent constituencies in the south-east, want more traffic to go through Manchester airport. That would be good for Manchester, for industrial development in the north of England, and for the spread of employment. It would also help to relieve airport congestion in the south-east. We all want that; the House is united on that.
Manchester airport has been doing rather well. Year by year its number of passengers has increased, although I cannot say steadily, as there has been a disproportionate increase in the past year. Last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) told us that the number of destinations reached by scheduled flights from Manchester had doubled in the past 12 months. That is very impressive, and it should continue. But no Member of Parliament for Manchester or the north-west has ever explained why he wants to put a lid on expansion at Stansted—thus allowing traffic to be attracted to Manchester—but not on expansion at Heathrow. The case of those hon. Members who represent Manchester and of their sympathisers would be much more convincing if they had some sympathy for my constituents, and the many others who live on the western side of London, who suffer from the noise and congestion caused by air traffic and if they tried to put a lid on that.

Mr. Alfred Morris: We are talking not about putting a lid on Stansted but of removing subsidisation; we are talking about fair competition. Many of my constituents and people all over the north are sick and tired of having to change planes at Heathrow in order to go to foreign destinations. They want to help the hon. Gentleman to relieve the pressure on Heathrow and other London airports.

Mr. Jessel: Then why does the right hon. Member never say that he is against the fifth terminal at Heathrow? He and his friends are always saying that they want a fifth terminal at Heathrow, and thereby want to increase its size and capacity. That proposition seems totally inconsistent with what the right hon. Member has just said. Until I hear a convincing explanation from him of that point, I am afraid he will not persuade me that he is single-minded and whole-hearted in the objectives he claims to pursue.
I welcome the general objectives of the Bill. Before I finally decide how to vote on the Third Reading, I want to know from the Minister a little more about how the Bill will affect the interests of my constituents, especially in relation to noise, which upsets a great many of them. Every day there are 750 flights in and out of Heathrow. The peace, quiet and health of the people in the area ought to receive a high priority, but I am afraid that it does not receive as high a priority as it should. The Government

should pursue policies not merely to maintain the noise at its present level, but to reduce it substantially and permanently.

Mr. Dicks: How many people moved into the constituency after the development of Heathrow at lower prices than they would otherwise have had to pay arid are now seeking some protection in order to get the maximum benefit from that situation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I understand the anxiety of Members to make constituency speeches, but the number of people who have moved in and out of the area is not really related to the provisions of the Bill. We are discussing the Third Reading and must direct our speeches to the provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Jessel: In the light of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which naturally I accept, I may seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment in order to deal with my hon. Friend's point, which is important but which is not, I accept, relevant to the Bill.
I bring up a relevant point that has been triggered off in my mind by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) in his notable speech just now, when he referred to the financial importance, in the context of this Bill, of duty-free drink. Will the Minister consider a completely new suggestion which I will make and which I believe comes within the ambit of this Bill? I hope that he can assure me that nothing in the Bill excludes my suggestion, which is that the profits from duty-free drink at the airports, which are dealt with in this Bill, should be used to provide for the payment of the cost of double glazing of the windows of my constituents, who could thus be protected from aircraft noise.
Sales of duty-free drink are buoyant. Every year they rise, yet it is noticeable that it costs almost as much to buy a bottle of drink duty-free at the airport as it would cost in a shop outside. On the surface, that fact would appear to negate the advantage of buying duty-free, but the public does not perceive the situation in that way. Whenever people travel, friends and family expect them to return from their journey with a bottle of duty-free, and are surprised if they do not. It seems that this expectation of a gift of duty-free drink upholds the sale of duty-free drink despite the cost of dragging it about the skies. Extra costs are involved, because carrying the extra weight of the duty-free drink about the skies wastes aviation fuel. I once heard a worldwide cost of £1·25 million as the value of fuel wasted on such cargo carried uselessly, since duty-free drink could have been bought on arrival rather than on departure at the airports dealt with in the Bill.
It seems certain that the sale of duty-free drink is buoyant, although the rationale for it has long since disappeared. The idea originated in the purchase of drink at sea. Excise duties were imposed on the purchase of drink ashore and in territories, but it was always duty-free off land and at sea. That situation was extended to aeroplanes as well, and eventually extended to the purchase of drink in airports. I believe that that rationale has disappeared, but I am sure the system will continue because people are so used to it and like it so much that it would be politically impossible for a Government of any colour to get rid of it.
The revenue from this source to the British Airports Authority and its successors under the Bill is substantial. Indeed, I understand that it produces a major proportion of the profits of the BAA. I suggest that this money should be used to provide double glazing for the windows of my constituents, who suffer from aircraft noise, living underneath the flight paths from Heathrow. Double glazing is not a complete solution to the problem of aircraft noise, because an open window or a garden cannot be double glazed, but it would mitigate the nuisance somewhat.
Hitherto, the geographical limits for the noise insulation scheme have been determined by a noise footprint based on the so-called noise and number index. Ministers in the Department of Trasport have recently recognised that the noise and number index is likely to be out of date.
The noise and number index is a formula from the 1960s that included as a measure of nuisance a weighting both for the number of flights and the average peak loudness of each flight. Some of us have long believed that the weighting between those two factors in the formula is wrong. That really did not matter during the 1960s and the early 1970s when the frequency of flight and average loudness were increasing together. If the weighting between the two elements in the formula was wrong and they were increasing together, it did not produce any significant distortion.
From the 1970s onwards, the frequency was increasing but the noise from each aircraft started to diminish with the introduction of wide-bodied aircraft, although certain very noisy aircraft such as Concorde have continued and will continue. That seems to suggest that the noise and number index is out of date as a measure of aircraft noise nuisance.
I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is absolutely right to question the continuation of the noise and number index as a measure of noise nuisance, and to suggest a different formula which he has called the Leq, a subject on which he has recently put out a consultation document. Contingent on the result of that consultation, if he decides to replace the noise and number index with the Leq index, that completely destroys the historic basis for the provision of noise insulation grants as determined by the noise and number index, using the noise footprints which have hitherto been respected and continue to be invoked by the BAA, the Civil Aviation Authority and other bodies but which will probably soon be dropped.
Therefore, there is a case for looking again, under the Leq measurements, at the noise nuisance that my constituents suffer. I believe that the Leq measurement would show a larger proportion being entitled, under the criteria previously used, to double glazing than has hitherto been the case. So I believe I have made a strong case for applying part of the profits from duty-free drink to double glazing of windows of my constituents in Twickenham.
Does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State uphold the position foreshadowed in the White Paper with respect to air traffic movement limits and the number of flights at Heathrow? The eddies of air behind the increased number of wide-bodied aircraft mean that greater spacing is needed between aircraft that are landing and taking off. That will result in fewer flights able to use Heathrow.
How will the reduced numbers of aircraft interact with runway capacity? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport consistently told the House in the airport debate in January—

Mr. George Park: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have already tried to tell the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) to speak to the Third Reading. Is it possible to get him to do so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are wide powers in the Bill. I am following closely the speech of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). He must relate what he says directly to the Bill.

Mr. Jessel: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State whether the Bill was likely to affect my constituents in the context of aircraft noise. I was relating that point to the number and type of flights which would be influenced by the Bill's provisions. I was referring especially to the interaction of capacity at Stansted, Heathrow and Gatwick.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The comments by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) are not just proof of transgression but are a repetition of transgression. Is the hon. Gentleman trying to breed from his mistakes?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members would be well advised to leave it to the Chair to decide whether an hon. Member is in order.

Mr. Jessel: I must take exception to the bogus point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should continue his speech. Many hon. Members want to raise points and the hon. Member should give them time to do so.

Mr. Jessel: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the Bill, which bears directly on the capacity of Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted. The Bill is directly concerned with the financing of Stansted. That aspect has been considered at every stage of the Bill's passage. Hon. Members do not want to hear those arguments because they do not like them. I shall find some reason to interrupt their speeches as well on irrelevant grounds.
The fifth terminal at Heathrow would be a major destructive force on the western side of London. It would affect many of our constituencies, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), who as a Whip cannot be expected to speak in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that one of the Bill's main aims was to provide access to all the airports with which the legislation deals. Heathrow is one such airport. Access would be hampered if capacity were increased. Excessive traffic generated by the demand to use the airport would cause congestion on the radial route along the Cromwell road in west London to Heathrow and on the orbital route around London, the M25. Untrammelled capacity at Heathrow could choke those routes.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will give a full reply to all my points.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I do not want to follow the convoluted points of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). The noise-aircraft ratio is not the problem—it is simply a matter of a marginal seat.
The Secretary of State said that this was the epilogue of the debate on the Bill. I was surprised that he drew an analogy from a prayer, as though he were relying on that for his success. It was more of a valedictory. I suspect that it meant he was sending the Bill with his good wishes along the corridors to the other place. The right hon. Gentleman failed to commend the brave rebels in the Conservative party for their assistance in the process of healthy opposition to the main points of the Bill.
In tabling reasoned amendments, Liberal Members gave three reasons why the Bill was not satisfactory. As the Secretary of State has pointed out, the Bill has reached Third Reading largely unscathed from the Committee and Report stages. We argued, first, that, if there is a monopoly, it should be in public rather than private hands. It can be argued that if a body is not a monopoly there need not be any dogmatic reason why it should be in public rather than in private hands.
My second argument against the Bill is that it fails to encourage diversity. It is strange that Conservative Members are not prepared to encourage a flexible approach by the smaller-scale airports which would benefit from avoiding a uniform solution. It is odd that there is no possibility of a mixture of private and statutory collaboration. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) pointed out, a case can be made for regional decisions on the right solution for a particular airport. It is not fair to say to those who have promoted Manchester over the years, "You will be put in the pot like everyone else and will be given the same solution even though you have succeeded so admirably."
Thirdly, there is an apparent failure to understand the importance of municipal pride and enterprise. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) misunderstood the point I made about building up municipal airports. He said that the money will go back to the people as shareholders. The money has been put into the airports by all the ratepayers according to the proportion they pay in rates, but it will come back to only a tiny minority. Conservative Members are fond of saying that the number of shareholders is increasing, and I am glad that it is, but only 2 million out of the 56 million people are private shareholders. It is hardly a consolation to ratepayers in some of the municipal airport areas to say that the money will come back to them as shareholders.

Mr. Hill: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that ratepayers who have invested in the municipal airports will all lose money, or will they receive an additional benefit?

Mr. Meadowcroft: That is a fair point. The answer is that it varies. The forecasts over the years have been too optimistic. I suspect that the future for the economy as a whole is not as bright as some of those who wanted to invest large capital sums expected. The £20 million invested in the development of Leeds-Bradford airport was based on an estimate of 800,000 extra package tour holidays from Leeds-Bradford by the year 1987–88. I do not believe that that number will be reached.
Ratepayers' money was invested in those airports in good faith. Once the shares are offered on the open

market, the advantages will not return to the city as a whole. One sacrifices local pride at onē's peril. The Liberal party is not dogmatic about economic structure. It is difficult in many cases to defend aspects of public ownership.
The Government were faced with those three major points in the reasoned amendments but failed to answer any of them.
The alternative to public ownership is not necessarily to privatise. There are different ways of having hybrid schemes which would not fall foul of the rules of debate in the House. There are different ways of having collaboration between public and private bodies and different ways for the smaller airports to have some sort of co-operative structure. None of that has been essayed in the Bill as it is now before the House. That is why I believe that the reasons we put forward on Second Reading were accurate. None of those reasons has been met and I hope that the House will refuse to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's brevity.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I am one of the main rebels against the Bill. I expressed my doubts about its contents on Second Reading, in Committee, as Opposition Members who served on the Committee will know, and yesterday on Report. I still feel strongly about it. I agree completely with the principle of privatisation, but there are many things wrong with the Bill. Earlier my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that because he had the votes in the Lobby the Bill must be right. That is not the case. The Government just got their whipping right. They called a three-line Whip and a payroll vote. That is the bread and butter of politics, and one cannot grumble too much about that.
At this stage let me at least pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State because they have listened to what has been said. They have not acted very much on what has been said, but at least they listened. In Committee, and again yesterday, even if the points made have not been written into the legislation, at least those of us concerned were able to make our points clearly.
I pay particular tribute to the Minister concerned with my amendment, which sought to give some protection to concessionaires. Although, with the help of Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends, the amendment was passed in Committee, the Government were able to remove it yesterday. However, in doing so, at least the Minister has met some of the concessionaires and me, recognised some of the points we made, and made some movement towards meeting our requirements. I am genuinely grateful for that. It is not often that a Back Bencher has an opportunity to get an amendment through in Committee with the support of Opposition Members. It was something special. Although the amendment is not now in the Bill, at least the Minister acknowledged that I had a point and the Government have moved a little towards it.
I must take this opportunity to say what the concessionaires give to the British Airports Authority. In 1984–85, £98 million came to the British Airports Authority as income from concessionaires. Two thirds of


the BAA's commercial income came from concessionaires, but the Bill makes no reference to them in any shape or form—at least not at the moment, although it will when the amendment goes through in the other place. The concessionaires were not thought to be relevant and were not looked upon as users of the airport. However, as I said, we have made the point and we have had some concessions, so we must be reasonably happy about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) spoke about better utilisation of airport land and facilities. He spoke about cinemas and other facilities. That concerns many of us because we believe that a great deal of airport space should be used to provide airport-related activities. Some of us are concerned that, in looking for a quick return on their investment, shareholders will be pushing the BAA into providing just those facilities that my hon. Friend mentioned, when they should be pushing the BAA to provide better airport-related facilities, not cinemas and bigger duty-free shops.
Some of us feel strongly and are bitterly disappointed that the Bill will not provide for the breaking up of the London system. We believe that Stansted should be made to stand on its own. Despite the pressures placed on the Government yesterday, that is not to be. I am sure that my right hon. Friend and hon. Friend will be aware that those of us who are involved will be watching the financing of Stansted very closely, not only because we think that it should stand on its own, but because we must look to the needs of the regions, especially Manchester airport, which must not be seen to be pushed aside because of the Government's direction on Stansted. Woe betide the Government or anybody else if we see that, despite the assurances, money is going to Stansted that should not go there and that Manchester and other airports are losing as a result.
We are also disappointed that we did not get a better reassurance from the Minister with regard to the activities of the scheduling committee. As I said yesterday, the airlines at Heathrow—I speak especially for Heathrow because it is in my constituency—are happy with the scheduling arrangements. I have a feeling that things will not change very much, but perhaps we could have a firmer assurance from the Secretary of State or the Minister with regard to the scheduling committee's activities. I am aware of the problems of runway capacity and the timing of incoming and outgoing flights. However, I hope that the Secretary of State will make it clear that the present scheduling committee arrangements will be allowed to continue unfettered and that any intervention on his part will be as a very last resort.
In a sense, the Bill touches on the position at Heathrow and its future development. I do not accept the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) but he has never missed an opportunity—good luck to him—to advocate his constituents' problems about airport noise. I made the point—and you quite rightly rebuked me for it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that we never know how many people buy houses at lower prices in an area with aircraft noise and then expect higher values for them. I want to emphasise that not every hon. Member representing a west London constituency is concerned about airport noise. Some of us have taken a wider view of the civil aviation industry, and the airports especially.

Mr. Bill Walker: Jobs.

Mr. Dicks: Yes. As my hon. Friend says, we are also concerned about jobs. I do not care where jobs are created as long as they are created.
I am fully aware that the consultants are now looking into the infrastructure problems around Heathrow with regard to access. We know, even before the fourth terminal is open, that something needs to be done. I am sure that the Minister will tell us later that the possibility of a fifth terminal is not completely ruled out. We need immediate action on the infrastructure problems. We need some help towards the provision of the Hayes bypass, which will not only help my constituents but ensure easier and better access to Heathrow. Heathrow is the world's major international airport. It must be kept that way and left unfettered as far as is humanly possible.
I want to issue a final warning to the British Airports Authority and the parent company which will take over later. The BAA may have moved from being a public monopoly to a private monopoly. It may be gleefully thinking, "We have done it again. We have persuaded the Department of Transport to do exactly what we want when we want." I and many of my hon. Friends will be watching closely. Sir Norman Payne, his fellow directors and senior managers should not think it is over yet. We shall be watching them closely. One false step and we shall be after them.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I shall preface my remarks by saying that I hope that all my hon. Friends and Conservative Members will have the chance to speak, because some of them have taken an interest in the Bill all the way through. I regret that some of the speeches earlier were self-indulgent and used up much time.
Despite the fact that the Secretary of State has told us that he feels that the Bill is right, it is quite clear, from the massive amount of criticism that it is still attracting from both sides of the House, that the Bill has little credibility within the House. It has been pointed out that it was only because of the Government's own placemen, those seeking advancement, and their ability to whip through the payroll vote that they were able to hang on to their majority. It was a serious rebuff that on a number of amendments the majority dropped as low as it did. That reflects the fact that the Bill is irrelevant to national airports policy, which is basically what we accused it of being on Second Reading. It is especially irrelevant because of the way in which it treats the different airports in the airport system.
I will not go at length into arguments that took place last night, but the idea that we should enshrine the right to private monopoly in legislation is a new concept, even for the Conservative party. I know that it greatly upsets some of the Conservative Members who feel that their principles are being betrayed by the Government. They are quite right to feel betrayed. It is dangerous that an under-regulated private monopoly has been created within the British Airports Authority.
I contrast that with the almost childlike obsession of the Department of Transport and its political masters with Manchester airport. Many of the actions that were taken against municipal airports were guided by the vendetta against Manchester. The elaborate nature of the financial controls are designed, ultimately, to drive Manchester


from its position as an independent private company back into this peculiar corporate structure which the Government have given us.
The use of those controls will prevent Manchester from borrowing and will prevent the development of Manchester airport. The Government hope that they will be able to force the local authority into privatisation. I regret that the economic future of Manchester, the north-west and Scotland will be jeopardised by the Government's ideological trap. They laid the trap and have fallen into it. Restrictions on capital are extremely dangerous. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will reconsider the stupidity of imposing such controls.
There are other issues that affect general airport policy. On the Secretary of State's desk there is a submission from the passenger transport authority in the Manchester area and from British Rail for a rail link to Manchester airport. The details of that submission have been published. Can the Minister tell me whether the Secretary of State is prepared to meet an all-party delegation to discuss the rail link? We could make progress on a matter that is important for the future of the airport. Will the Minister also agree to publish the details of the submission for a rail link to Stansted, which is a matter of great importance?

Mr. Michael Spicer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at this point. I shall answer his question straightaway in case I forget to do so later.
The Department of Transport is deeply involved in the discussions that are taking place. Whether an all-party delegation should meet my right hon. Friend or other Ministers is, perhaps, not the issue. The Department is assessing the viability of both potential rail links. I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman was seeking to make on the matter. The matter is the subject of intense discussion and analysis.

Mr. Lloyd: I refer the Minister to the brief exchange between him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). That exchange concerned the Department's helpfulness to Manchester with regard to applications for new routes. The Minister said that the Department of Transport was beyond reproach. However, I share the view of the Singapore Government that its application for a new air route with Manchester was finally granted by the Department, after two refusals, due to the massive amount of pressure which was raised in Manchester. There were also delays before Iberia were ultimately granted an application for flights to Manchester. Such actions do not give one great faith in what goes on at the Department of Transport.
I am aware that the Department is actively involved in the discussions on the proposed rail link to Manchester airport, but I ask that there should be an all-party meeting so that the Government's thinking on the matter is known. In that way we can make progress. If such a meeting could take place it would be helpful. I will let the Minister dwell upon that matter.
The Bill does not address itself to the problems of our airport systems. We still lack an airport policy. When the Labour party comes into office such a policy will be a matter of considerable urgency. We shall use some of the powers that exist in the Bill to create an effective structure to meet the nation's air transport needs. Sadly, such needs will not be met by the present Secretary of State.

Mr. John Carlisle: I will not follow the parochial arguments of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) about Manchester airport. He will understand if my remarks concern Luton airport.
The hon. Member for Stretford paid a tribute to those who have been involved with the Bill through all its stages. I must apologise to the House because this is my first intervention on the Bill. The simple reason is that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) would normally be here to speak for the interests of his constituency. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is indisposed and I am an inadequate stand-in to represent him and the airport. I hope the House will forgive me if my knowledge of the Bill is scant compared to that of other hon. Members.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend is not present, as he has shown enormous enthusiasm for the Bill. Such enthusiasm regrettably caused my hon. Friend to fall out with the leader of Luton council, who opposed the Bill. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may have witnessed such opposition on his recent visit to Luton. The arguments which have been put forward by my hon. Friend and by the Government in Committee have allayed some of the worst fears of Luton borough council. There is a much broader welcome in Luton for the Bill.
We are extremely proud of our airport. It is extremely well run and we are not afraid of the opportunity to become a plc. I am pleased to report to the Minister that the feeling in this constituency is more welcoming to the Bill than it was some months ago. The importance of Luton airport to the district cannot be under-estimated. Last night, that was highlighted in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) when he said that Luton airport was the second largest employer in the town. The prosperity of the airport is crucial to the prosperity of the town and the area.
We agree in principle with the Bill and agree that airport management can be strengthened by an intake of new directors. We are anxious to use the new sources of finance which will be made available by the Bill. When the plc is formed, I believe many local people will wish to buy shares and become part of one of the greatest assets of the area.
We welcome the assurance on pension rights given by my right hon. Friend yesterday evening. There has been much concern from one particular union. I have not been able to get that union's reaction to the altercations in the House yesterday but it appears that my right hon. Friend's words have allayed the worst fears. However, my right hon. Friend did not go as far as some unions wanted. His assurances were reasonable and should be welcomed by thinking people.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) and for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and myself supported an amendment because of our fears of the development of a continuing subsidisation of Stansted. The Minister will be aware that there will be much concern in Luton about the unfair competition of Stansted and its effect upon Luton. Luton has been affected more than any other airport because of its proximity to Stansted. My hon. Friends and myself felt obliged to go into the Lobby against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because we felt our fears were not allayed by his assurances. I was pleased to support the


right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester). We want to encourage scheduled flights from Luton and we are not afraid of unfair competition. If Stansted continues as a subsidised airport and is not made to stand on its own feet—the Bill will not completely force it to do so—we shall be permanently worried about competition and our attempt to attract the 5 million passengers as envisaged by my right hon. Friend will be even more difficult. Nevertheless, we are ready to take up the challenge.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have time to answer three questions, but, if not, I hope that he will write either to me or to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South. Luton borough council and I are worried about the financial arrangements in clause 20. At present the airport has a debt of some £17 million which needs an annual servicing of £2 million. We are worried that because of the Bill the servicing of that debt will have to be retained by the ratepayers, rather than taken on by the plc. If that is the case, it will have a devastating effect on Luton ratepayers. With the loss of £2·5 million in rate support grant, the ratepayers would face a massive rise of 60 per cent. in an attempt to find £4·5 million in the coming financial year.
I am cognisant of my precarious election positon and of that of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is anxious that we return and represent that town in the House. If a 60 per cent. rates increase were proposed, probably in election year, we would have difficulty in persuading the electorate that the Bill was the best thing since sliced bread. Will my hon. Friend remind the Secretary of State that that is causing great anxiety in Luton? Can he assure me tonight that the plc can take on the servicing debt? If not, I hope that he will write to me or my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South.
My second question is about clause 17. I apologise to the House that thanks to the good service of a Labour Whip I went home last night at a quarter to 11, so I was not present for the altercations on clause 17. It provides the basis for airport directors to remain as councillors and participate in council meetings. There is great concern about the composition of the council in Luton, where we have 23 Conservative members, 17 Labour members, seven Liberal members and one Independent Labour member. In such circumstances, if members of the council are appointed as airport directors, as we expect them to be, their interests on the council and in airport matters could conflict with clause 17. Can my hon. Friend the Minister clarify that position, which I also raised on Second Reading? Does he consider that position to be similar to that in the Transport Act 1985, or is there no way that those airport directors can take part in any proceedings on airport business in the council chamber?
My third anxiety relates to the time for proceeding towards a plc. I ask him on behalf of the borough council whether, when we proceed towards the plc, we can have a little more time and flexibility. He will understand that a vast number of different departments, such as the finance department, the environment health department, the architect's department and, even, the recreational services department, are involved in a local authority airport such as Luton. Those various departments will need a certain

amount of time to unscramble the various operations that they perform at the airport. Considering the provisions of the Bill and, particularly, my right hon. Friend's comments in Committee, we believe that that unscrambling will take some time. I do not know whether he appreciates the problems that we could face. It will not be simple to assimilate the new procedures, but, obviously, we shall do so as efficiently as we can.
We wish the Bill the best of speed in the other place, and I ask the Government to consider the necessary amendments that I have proposed. It is a first-class Bill, and certainly one which the people of Luton heartily welcome.

Mr. Peter Pike: I must disagree with the line pursued by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), and I certainly shall not vote for the Third Reading of the Bill tonight.
The Secretary of State said that the lack of interventions signified agreement with the Bill. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was absolutely right in saying that the Government had made so few concessions that Labour Members felt it was pointless to intervene, especially with the present Secretary of State who, as in debates on the Transport Bill, may have listened, but failed at all stages to take any notice and to make any concessions.
I certainly agree with the Secretary of State that we should have an airports policy for the United Kingdom which will attract airlines and air traffic, especially international and intercontinental flights, to British airports rather than to Frankfurt or other continental airports. That is essential. However, I do not agree with him that the Bill goes in that direction. I do not believe that it will solve our civil aviation problems. It fails to provide a national airports policy, to develop our regional airports and to solve our present problems.
I have grave reservations about the proposal to privatise the BAA—owned London airports together. I cannot see why Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted should all come under one owner in the private sector. Obviously, I do not agree with privatisation to start with, but if they must be privatised, I do not see why they cannot be split up. Nor do I see why Stansted should not be left to stand on its own feet, especially if there is potential for it to develop. At every stage I have opposed that encouragement, but the Government have a stubborn bias and continually widen the rift between north and south. I know that they will encourage the growth of that airport at the expense of our regional airports. If the Government believe that Stansted should grow, why should it not fight for that growth on its own merits?
The Secretary of State's policy of privatising the airports together and creating a monopoly in London conflicts considerably with his position last year on the Transport Bill when he decided that the National Bus Company had to be privatised, but not as a whole, although it faces municipal and private competition. On that occasion there was a good case for privatising the company as an entity as it faced considerable competition.
The Bill fails adequately to safeguard the position of employees. Despite the Government's concession on pensions last night, I am still gravely concerned about the future of employees, whether employed by municipal airports or the BAA. Once again, the Government intend


to make privatisation work through worse conditions for existing and future employees in the industry, and by not giving them the sort of conditions to which they are entitled or a guarantee as to the type of pension scheme which most employees have at present.
The Secretary of State told us that agreement had not yet been reached on the shareholdings for employees and the type of concessions that they are to be offered. Once again, the Government have failed with regard to employee participation. If they genuinely believe in employee shareholding, why do they not also provide for employee directors to sit on the boards of the privatised industries? The percentage of shares that will be taken by employees will be so small as to have no impact on the future of the companies.
My final point is about Manchester airport. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and the North of England Regional Consortium have made the case forcibly and concisely for Manchester and the other regional airports. Their comments were used yesterday, and so I will not refer to them today. Over many years, the Manchester authority has exercised foresight by making massive capital investments when it appeared that those investments would take some years to bear fruit. The forecasts were usually proved to be pessimistic, and the position rapidly moved into profit. The Bill, however, places grave limitations on Manchester airport's ability to spend capital in the future. Such restrictions will inhibit the growth of Manchester as a plc owned by the Manchester local authorities. I acknowledge what has been done in the past. We have a great airport with tremendous potential. I believe that, given sufficient freedom, it could develop.
My final point arises on all privatisation debates. The BAA will be privatised, and the Government will receive a capital sum. The Government have spoken about the BAA's record over many years. That record is extremely good, in spite of the shackles that the Government have imposed on publicly owned industries. The proceeds will be used once, and the income thrown away for year after year. Such assets should remain under public control, whether that of the BAA or of the municipal authorities, and we should encourage the growth of airports in that way, giving full encouragement to the development of our regional airports as well as the London airports.

Mr. Bill Walker: I declare an interest as director of two aviation companies. I have also tried, throughout the passage of the Bill, to look after the Scottish interest as a Scottish Member on the Government Benches. I believe that some of my Scottish colleagues are, in their kindest thoughts, calling me "airport Bill". They often call me other things, and I much prefer "airport Bill".
The Bill will bring about substantial change. It is an interesting and exciting Bill, but, as the Government know, I still believe that there are some deficiencies in it. I put down amendments both in Committee and on Report. I believe that, in its present form, the Bill will not increase competition. I believe in competition. I know that the Government are wedded to competition. Sadly, if anyone imagines that the Bill in its present form will increase competition, that view must be based on hope rather than experience. By privatising the BAA, we are turning a public monopoly into a private one.
When I talk about the BAA, I can always feel the eyes of the BAA on the back of my neck. I do not dislike what the BAA has done. It has done well. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). Under its terms and conditions and the rules under which it has operated, the BAA has done a very good job. However, I understood that the Government policy that was to be embodied in the Bill was to be that of improving competition, providing great opportunities for the investment of public funds, and encouraging more openness in the system. Such a policy will not he achieved. I understand the limitations facing the Government when they consider how to privatise the BAA. When attempting to privatise an organisation, one needs to have the support at least of the workers or the management. If, perhaps, the employees are hostile, one needs the support of the management. If both management and employees are hostile, a difficult job becomes almost impossible.
That is why, while I supported amendments for the break-up of the BAA, I recognised that in the end we would probably end up with something like the present Bill with seven companies being privatised under one overseeing company. I accepted that, but I was surprised that more was not done in the Bill to allow competition on the airports. Ministers have said that they wish to see such competition, but there is nothing in the Bill to encourage it, and experience in other fields suggests to me that it will not arise. The provisions in the Bill will not produce the result that the Government want.
Many questions remain unanswered. While the Bill was in Committee, I twice asked a question about the local authority airport plcs. The question was never properly answered. Under the arms-length arrangements that will exist after the Bill becomes an Act, the shareholders are the local authority. I asked who would be entitled to attend the annual general meetings. One of the pressure points on any plc is what happens at the AGM. It is necessary to set everything in order so that one can tell the shareholders at the AGM, "Look how good we are." As I understand it, the meetings will be attended by the duly appointed elected councillors. The majority of them may be of the opinion that they should be doing something in a certain way because of their political point of view. They will be perfectly entitled to their views, but how will that affect the pressure that is supposed to be caused by the fact that the airport has become a plc? I wonder whether there will be any pressure, other than pressure to do exactly what the councillors want—which is what the directors may be required to do. That is another weakness in the Bill.
I approve of turning the local authority airports into plcs. I approve of making the BAA a plc. That is the right thing to do. I believe that the Bill will achieve many of the objectives that I would wish to see achieved in a new and enterprising British airports system. That system would include the new BAA plc. In Scotland, there would be the civil aviation airports. Those eight airports would also be operating as a separate plc, as the Bill stands. However, there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that they, the local authority plcs or the BAA will become involved in any competition on the airports themselves. The Bill will not lead to competition. That will be a weakness. We will not achieve what the Government set out to achieve. Notwithstanding that, there is much good in the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to consider in the Bill the problems of traffic distribution.


The Bill will deal wisely and sensibly with such matters. Some members of the Committee had doubts about that and tabled amendments to improve the operation of the mechanism. There is no doubt that the Bill retains the present voluntary arrangements which my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier. The scheduling committees will continue until such time as they are unable to resolve the problems. When that time comes, there will be a mechanism to deal with the problem. That is clearly laid out in the Bill. I hope that it will never be used. I hope that the scheduling committees will continue, for the foreseeable future, to continue to make decisions on slots and allocations, because that is the best way to do it.
I welcome that part of the Bill which encourages employee shareholding and my right hon. Friend's comment that a British Telecom-type shareholding will be encouraged for BAA employees. That is a good thing. I wonder whether the Bill as it stands is equipped to encourage the necessary expansion to meet the demands that we expect at Heathrow and Gatwick.
I also welcome, although with minor qualifications, the fact that, once the airports become plcs and the separate companies are set up, the accounts will show clearly how, for example, the Scottish civilian airports are subsidised—they are properly subsidised—and by how much. I welcome that, because those of us in Scotland who care dearly about the infrastructure wish the money to be used sensibly and wisely. I welcome the fact that the accounts will show how Prestwick is operating and how Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen airports are progressing. I also welcome the fact that we shall see clearly that there will be no transfer of funds from the three airports in the London system for the assistance of Stansted. The treatment of capital expenditure and investment in the new plcs is a big improvement. At present, the treatment of the British Airports Authority's accounts differs from the treatment of revenue and capital in plcs, so the change will benefit the BAA.
In general, the Bill follows the lines that I would have wished. I am unhappy with some parts, but in general the Bill does what I believe should be done. I give it a qualified welcome.

Mr. Robert Litherland: Having been a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, I witnessed the tremendously rough passage that it received. The Government were defeated twice, and on another occasion only the Chairman's casting vote saved them. To add insult to injury, the three amendments were tabled by Conservative Back-Bench Members of a Committee that was supposed to consist of future Ministers. Many parliamentary private secretaries were present. It is always in the Government's interests if Back Bench Members do not speak, but the Hansard reports of the Committee show that the Government Back-Bench Members were extremely vocal.
One issue on which Conservative Members were vocal was consultation. The first thing that the Committee did was to put right the oversight of the Secretary of State to pay tribute to the BAA workers. We said that they were the finest workers in the world and that they should be given credit for the success of the company. At the same time, we said that there should be proper and meaningful

consultation. We asked the Secretary of State to table on Report an amendment to correct the lack of consultation, but nothing happened.
The BAA workers visited the House yesterday, expressed their anxiety about their future and queried what was in store for them in terms of job security and pensions. They are worried that a change of ownership might be detrimental to their well-being and that of their families. We fear that the workers will be faced with a fait accompli and that their anxieties will not be alleviated.
During the debate on consultation, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said:
Nothing that I have said suggests that people investing their time and skills is not an investment. Of course, it is an investment. I believe that the greatest asset any organisation has is the people who work for it. We often confuse what companies and organisations do with the people who work for them. Those people are what really matters. I believe that that is what is behind the amendment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 6 February 1986; c. 13.]
But the workers are still terribly confused.
Last night, there was another rebellion by more than 30 Conservative Back-Bench Members about Stansted's becoming a free-standing airport. That rebellion should show the Government and the Secretary of State that they have got it wrong. They cobbled the Bill together and even after amendments it remains cobbled. Nothing has changed. The Government Back-Bench Members were not convinced in Committee, nor were they convinced last night.
In his reply to the debate last night, the Secretary of State gave excuses rather than good reasons, and his efforts to suggest that Stansted would not receive a hidden, large and unfair subsidy came across in the pathetic lame excuse that Manchester had outstripped Stansted in its development in recent years and that the Government had assisted Manchester in its progress. If that is the case, why was Stansted given the go-ahead for a rail link while Manchester is still waiting for one? If the Government intend Manchester airport to grow, it should have been given the link long ago.
The Government are in another quandary as to how to tackle the problems of Manchester airport. The Secretary of State agreed that, if all the 10 district authorities could agree, they could set up a public limited company. After receiving legal advice on company procedure, they have now set up a legitimate company and have embarrassed the Government. They have taken the Secretary of State at his word.
The Guardian quoted the Under-Secretary of State as saying:
Local authority airports would be compelled to transfer their airport operations into public limited companies and sell shares to the public at the earliest opportunity. But if local authorities kept a 51 per cent, stake in their airports, the Government would retain a powerful influence over their affairs through existing controls over local authority spending.
I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will tell us Manchester's position. The council now has 100 per cent, of the shares. Manchester city has 55 per cent. and the districts have 5 per cent. of the shares each. How can a company be brought back under local government restraints when it will have been borrowing from the private market for a number of months? So far the Under-Secretary has not answered that question. Even now he has not listened to one word that I have said. He is having a conversation. He wants only 10 minutes to reply and to


answer that question would take much longer. I have been asking the hon. Gentleman questions now for the past five minutes and he has not heard a word that I have said.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I heard.

Mr. Litherland: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much indeed.
A directive from the Department of the Environment's consultation document said that it was
open to authorities to establish wholly or partly owned limited companies. Under the present system capital expenditure by such a company does not count as prescribed expenditure by the authority that controls it, but contributions of a capital nature to the company by the authority do count. Moreover, such companies have freedom, subject to their articles of association, to borrow from the financial markets.
We believe that Manchester now has those articles and can borrow from the private market, so how can the Government possibly bring it back under the contraints of local authority finance?
The practical differences between the two types of companies in the Bill are significant and have never been understood by the Government. I am waiting for the Under-Secretary of State's reply to see whether, at last, he has understood what the argument is about. That is why we thought there was hybridity in the Bill. Manchester airport is set up as something entirely different. Manchester international airport no longer exists and a new company has been set up that can borrow from the private market. How can the Government once again bring it under the constraints of a local authority?

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, for not having been here for the resumption of the debate this afternoon. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) who was once delayed by an aeroplane, I was delayed by a British Rail train that was not getting there. That explains my late arrival in the House this afternoon.
In some ways the Airports Bill is a Bill of opportunity and lost opportunity. It is an opportunity to put some of our airports on a sounder business footing, and that I welcome. It is perhaps a lost opportunity to put them on a sounder competitive footing. We have fought for that argument. It may be taken up in another place. It was a real and viable argument and I hope that the arguments that were put that did not gain a majority will, nevertheless, be found with hindsight to have been the more compelling.
The Bill is an opportunity to privatise and to put at arm's length from the Government the operation of our airports, and that I welcome. Yet it seems that what the Government have thrust away from themselves with one hand they have been inclined to bind to themselves with the other with the panoply of controls which the Bill enables them to have.
Nevertheless, I speak at this stage of the Bill's proceedings in a slightly more conciliatory spirit than the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), because I generally support the Bill. I welcome the fact that the Government have tightened the provisions to guard against the cross-subsidy factor which has been of such great concern. I am grateful to the Government for particularising the weapon of control of air traffic movements to Stansted which is, effectively, what has been done.
That is not only in the interests of those of my constituents who have been concerned about the possible future extension of Stansted, but it recognises the concerns of the aviation industry as to how such a power might at some future time be used.
I am not sure whether the Bill fully reflects all the interests of the airline as customers of the airports, but enough has been said on that for good sense to prevail and one hopes that working relationships will respect the interests that the airlines have in the use of our airports and that we might see a constructive relationship in the future which does not have some of the difficulties that have attended those relationships in the past.
I cannot help thinking that no part of my constituency could have had greater attention throughout the Bill's proceedings than the airport at Stansted, which is close to the village of Stansted Mountfitchet. It would be surprising if any part of my constituency gets such particular attention again, unless, of course, the Government were to propose to dispose of nuclear waste in the region—heaven forbid.
I bear no rancour over the development of Stansted airport. I wish it success, if modest success. I trust that no one will misunderstand that. I have never been opposed to the development of Stansted. I happen to have a view that a more limited development is the right thing for the industry and for the neighbourhood in which that airport is situated. I continue to hope that we shall be able to achieve in practice over the years the sort of compromise with which everyone can live.
I harbour no ill will to the BAA whose opponent I have had to be at various stages of the Bill. It has misunderstood my motives as it doubtless thinks that I have misunderstood its. However, throughout the Bill's proceedings the argument has been solely about what is best for the British aviation industry and for the best operation of British airports. It is my desire to work with the BAA in my constituency, as I would work with any other employer or supplier of services therein. I am grateful for the cordial relationship with the director of Stansted airport, Allan Munds, who is trying to set relationships in the area on a better footing than perhaps they have been in the past.
I am still inclined to wonder what may flow from the Bill. It will not be the final word on the pattern of Britain's airports. Allusion has already been made to Heathrow. One of the falsest trails that has been set throughout the airports debate has been the question of the competitive position of London, as though that required the full expansion of three airports. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have had to say time and time again that the nub of the argument is whether Heathrow can be made to be the sharpest competitive force against the foreign airport systems. That is what it is all about, and it will come to that in the end. One hopes that nothing in the Bill will preclude the possibility of the maximisation of facilities at Heathrow.
The Government have had difficulty in picking a way through British airports policy. It has pleased the Government to obtain a development at Stansted in the first place. It has pleased the Government to say that the limitation at Heathrow is the runway capacity. I shall not go into those arguments now, but they will not go away. We shall have to turn back to them at some stage. We must ensure that Heathrow, together with the other airports, are all a success in the name of Britain.
I hope for the best for British civil aviation and it is because I do so that I hope for the best from the Bill, and I shall certainly support it in the Lobbies tonight.

Mr. Roger King: In the three years that I have had the pleasure of being a Member of the House, I seem to have involved myself, by dint of serving on the Select Committee on Transport, with the future of airports. Indeed, that Committee for nearly 12 months discussed the future structure of British airports. I was privileged to take part in those discussions and to compare the running of airports not just in this country but in other parts of the world. Although the Bill does not outline what I would have liked as the preferred solution, I think that it goes a long way to improving the potential of our airports system to compete with the systems in Europe.
I felt that privatised British airports, with Gatwick as a separate undertaking, might be a preferred solution for the London area. None the less, given the criticisms and problems that a separate Gatwick might well have raised, I am happy to accept the Bill as it stands and the controls introduced therein. Never has an undertaking had so many restrictions put on it to ensure as much fair play as possible in the future privatised system.
I mentioned that I was interested in airports. Indeed, airport security is a matter under discussion in the Select Committee. Although our national and international airports are considered to be gateway airports to the world, it must be remembered that they are also gateway airports into this country. I hope that when we publish our findings we shall endeavour to point out the risks of having too much open security visible to everybody, because of the danger of deterring people from coming to this country.
In the course of debates in Committee, many points were raised by hon. Members on both sides. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and I had the pleasure of highlighting the problems of Birmingham which I wish now to repeat. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was very generous when he summed up our concern about Birmingham airport's £30 million debt as a result of expansion. He was kind enough to say that he would be very flexible about the establishment of a debt-equity ratio. He said:
It is important to find a solution for each airport to suit its financial circumstances. We shall be as helpful as we can in arranging a debt-equity ratio for Birmingham that will be as advantageous as possible."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 6 March 1986; c. 454.]
I hope that we can hold him to his word and that Birmingham can prosper as a public limited company, which I am sure it will be.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): I suspect the House will not wish me to prolong this debate much further. The debates we have had on this Bill on Second Reading, during 19 sittings of the Standing Committee and until the early hours of this morning on Report have been detailed and at times complex and highly technical. Many of those right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the

debates have been extremely knowledgeable about the subjects that they discussed, and Ministers have had to be pretty agile just to keep up with them.
Several of my hon. Friends have displayed not only the depths of their knowledge on the subject of aviation but the intensity of their passion in battling for constituency and other causes that they have espoused. Some have taken a last bow, at least for the time being, on the Bill today—my hon. Friends the Members for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), to name but four—and there have been new arrivals in the form of my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). Their contributions have been most welcome.
I can tell the House that the results of those efforts by my hon. Friends have manifested themselves in amendment, and, indeed, improvement of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden was generous enough to mention one of them, although it has to be said that some of my hon. Friends will say that the process has not gone far enough. In doing so, they may themselves underestimate the impact that they have made.
I shall deal briefly with one or two specific points that were raised. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and his hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) claimed that we were carrying our some sort of vendetta against Manchester, and that all the licences were despite us rather than because of us. They mentioned, in particular, the question of Singapore Airlines. The formal request of the Singapore Government for access to Manchester was not received until mid-March 1985. Official consultations were held at the beginning of May, at which agreement was reached for the services to start on 1 April 1986. That additional time was needed for the company to make local arrangements and decide on the routeing for its new services. I hope that hon. Members will spend as much time lobbying foreign Governments to let in our airlines as they claim to lobby on behalf of foreign airlines to allow them to come into our airports.
I have two things to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North. We will be flexible about the debt-equity ratios at airports, but perhaps I might write to him on what would be a complex matter to cover tonight. Councillors who are directors will be able to discuss airport matters but not to vote on specific matters concerning contracts, which seems to be a reasonable compromise.
The Bill that the House now has before it opens the way to the privatisation of Britain's major airports. As such it is a further manifestation of what this Government mean by full and genuine public ownership—the possession of shares and rights in public companies by employees and by the greatest possible number of individual members of the public.
The airports over which the Government currently have direct control and ownership and which they therefore have the right to sell to the public are the seven British Airports Authority airports. Those we shall sell as separate companies under one holding company,. In selling these companies, we shall use every marketing method that we can to help us to reach the widest public.
We are confident that the owners of the 16 local authority airports covered by the terms of the Bill will increasingly see the benefits of introducing private capital.


Finance for development, employee participation, management incentives and, if over 51 per cent. of the shares are sold, loss of public sector capital controls are four benefits which spring immediately to mind. Indeed, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) raised that specific point. He wondered whether it was unfair that, while they remained in the public sector, they should have those controls. We do not accept that. They have the public sector guarantee behind them, which distinguishes them in the public sector. If they come out of the public sector, they will reap the benefits of privatisation.
Concern has been expressed about the controls once the airports are in the private sector. I give the House the assurance once more that economic and anti-monopolistic regulation will ensure that the new public airport companies do not act anti-competitively and against the public interest.
We have also taken or retained powers to protect the interests of the state in matters of security with respect to the impact made by the operations of the airports on the environment. On the latter point, I would say to the House that we totally accept that a Government as successful as this Government have been in pursuing the interests of aviation—to the point where our international airports are the busiest in the world, where Manchester airport alone is one of the largest in Europe and where our airlines are collectively the most successful outside the United States—a Government with these achievements to their credit, are bound to be highly sensitive to the environmental impact of this growth and success.
That explains in large measure why, at those airports where we have taken direct powers over noise abatement, we are engaged in major reviews of aircraft track keeping, monitoring methods, noise abatement procedures, night restrictions, noise insulation policies and also the noise indices that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). Should the need arise, we shall be able to extend those powers to any airport.
This Airports Bill, to which I now ask the House to give a Third Reading, will, I am sure, prove to be a historic milestone for this country. The privatisation of utilities, such as major airports, will be no mean feat. It would seem that we are now to be followed by other countries, notably the United States of America.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 138.

Division No. 130]
[7 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bendall, Vivian


Aitken, Jonathan
Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic


Alexander, Richard
Benyon, William


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Best, Keith


Amess, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ancram, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Tom
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Ashby, David
Blackburn, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Body, Sir Richard


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bottomley, Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Baldry, Tony
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Batiste, Spencer
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Bellingham, Henry
Brandon-Bravo, Martin





Brinton, Tim
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hawksley, Warren


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hayes, J.


Browne, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Bruinvels, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heddle, John


Buck, Sir Antony
Henderson, Barry


Burt, Alistair
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butterfill, John
Hill, James


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carttiss, Michael
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Cash, William
Holt, Richard


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Churchill, W. S.
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cockeram, Eric
Hunter, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Irving, Charles


Conway, Derek
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Coombs, Simon
Jessel, Toby


Cope, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Couchman, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dover, Den
King, Rt Hon Tom


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dunn, Robert
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Durant, Tony
Knowles, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Lamont, Norman


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Ian


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawler, Geoffrey


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Farr, Sir John
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Favell, Anthony
Lightbown, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lilley, Peter


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fletcher, Alexander
Lord, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Nicholas


Forth, Eric
McCrindle, Robert


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fox, Marcus
Macfarlane, Neil


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Galley, Roy
Madel, David


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Major, John


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Malins, Humfrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Malone, Gerald


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maples, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Marland, Paul


Gow, Ian
Mates, Michael


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maude, Hon Francis


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gregory, Conal
Mellor, David


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Merchant, Piers


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Ground, Patrick
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Moate, Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Jeremy
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hannam, John
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Harris, David
Moynihan, Hon C.


Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neale, Gerrard






Nelson, Anthony
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Neubert, Michael
Stern, Michael


Newton, Tony
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Onslow, Cranley
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Osborn, Sir John
Sumberg, David


Ottaway, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Parris, Matthew
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Pattie, Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Terlezki, Stefan


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Pollock, Alexander
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Portillo, Michael
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thornton, Malcolm


Powley, John
Thurnham, Peter


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Price, Sir David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Tracey, Richard


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Trippier, David


Raffan, Keith
Trotter, Neville


Rathbone, Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Renton, Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Viggers, Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waddington, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walden, George


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rowe, Andrew
Wall, Sir Patrick


Ryder, Richard
Waller, Gary


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Walters, Dennis


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Ward, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Scott, Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitfield, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Whitney, Raymond


Shersby, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Silvester, Fred
Wilkinson, John


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Woodcock, Michael


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Yeo, Tim


Speed, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spencer, Derek



Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Squire, Robin
Mr. Archie Hamilton.


Stanbrook, Ivor





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bidwell, Sydney


Alton, David
Blair, Anthony


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Boyes, Roland


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Barnett, Guy
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Bermingham, Gerald
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)





Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Litherland, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Livsey, Richard


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Loyden, Edward


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McCartney, Hugh


Cartwright, John
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clarke, Thomas
McKelvey, William


Clay, Robert
McNamara, Kevin


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McTaggart, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Madden, Max


Cohen, Harry
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Martin, Michael


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Craigen, J. M.
Maxton, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Michie, William


Dewar, Donald
Mikardo, Ian


Dixon, Donald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dormand, Jack
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ewing, Harry
Nellist, David


Fatchett, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Faulds, Andrew
O'Neill, Martin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Park, George


Fisher, Mark
Parry, Robert


Flannery, Martin
Patchett, Terry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pavitt, Laurie


Forrester, John
Penhaligon, David


Foster, Derek
Pike, Peter


Foulkes, George
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Redmond, Martin


Garrett, W. E.
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Godman, Dr Norman
Robertson, George


Golding, John
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Stott, Roger


Home Robertson, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Howells, Geraint
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Tinn, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Torney, Tom


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Wallace, James


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Weetch, Ken


John, Brynmor
Wigley, Dafydd


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wilson, Gordon


Kennedy, Charles
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert



Kirkwood, Archy
Tellers for the Noes:


Lambie, David
Mr. Norman Hogg and


Lamond, James
Mr. John McWilliam.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Armed Forces (Re-Committed) Bill

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Select Committee), read.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be re-committed to a Select Committee.—[Mr. McNamara.]

The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 238.

Division No. 131]
[7. 14 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Alton, David
Kennedy, Charles


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Kirkwood, Archy


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Lambie, David


Barnett, Guy
Lamond, James


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bermingham, Gerald
Litherland, Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Livsey, Richard


Blair, Anthony
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Boyes, Roland
Loyden, Edward


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McKelvey, William


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
McTaggart, Robert


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Madden, Max


Buchan, Norman
Marek, Dr John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Martin, Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Maxton, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Meacher, Michael


Cartwright, John
Meadowcroft, Michael


Clarke, Thomas
Michie, William


Clay, Robert
Mikardo, Ian


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cohen, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Nellist, David


Craigen, J. M.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cunningham, Dr John
O'Neill, Martin


Dalyell, Tam
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Park, George


Deakins, Eric
Parry, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Patchett, Terry


Dixon, Donald
Pavitt, Laurie


Dormand, Jack
Penhaligon, David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Pike, Peter


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Redmond, Martin


Ewing, Harry
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fatchett, Derek
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Faulds, Andrew
Robertson, George


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Sedgemore, Brian


Fisher, Mark
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Flannery, Martin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Forrester, John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Golding, John
Stott, Roger


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Tinn, James


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Wallace, James


Haynes, Frank
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Weetch, Ken


Home Robertson, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Howells, Geraint
Wilson, Gordon


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)



Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Mr. Norman Hogg and


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Mr. John McWilliam.





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir lan


Alexander, Richard
Greenway, Harry


Amess, David
Gregory, Conal


Arnold, Tom
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Ashby, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Ground, Patrick


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Grylls, Michael


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Baldry, Tony
Hanley, Jeremy


Batiste, Spencer
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bellingham, Henry
Harris, David


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Haselhurst, Alan


Benyon, William
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Best, Keith
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hawksley, Warren


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hayes, J.


Blackburn, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Body, Sir Richard
Henderson, Barry


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bottomley, Peter
Hill, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hind, Kenneth


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Holt, Richard


Brinton, Tim
Hordern, Sir Peter


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Howard, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Browne, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bruinvels, Peter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Butterfill, John
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Irving, Charles


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Carttiss, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Cash, William
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Chapman, Sydney
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Chope, Christopher
King, Rt Hon Tom


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Knowles, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Lamont, Norman


Conway, Derek
Lang, Ian


Coombs, Simon
Lawler, Geoffrey


Cope, John
Lee, John (Pendle)


Couchman, James
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lilley, Peter


Dicks, Terry
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dorrell, Stephen
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Dover, Den
Lyell, Nicholas


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
McCrindle, Robert


Dunn, Robert
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Neil


Dykes, Hugh
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Eggar, Tim
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Emery, Sir Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Major, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Malone, Gerald


Fallon, Michael
Maples, John


Favell, Anthony
Marland, Paul


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mates, Michael


Fletcher, Alexander
Mather, Carol


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forth, Eric
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mellor, David


Fox, Marcus
Merchant, Piers


Franks, Cecil
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Freeman, Roger
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Fry, Peter
Moate, Roger


Galley, Roy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)






Moynihan, Hon C.
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Newton, Tony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Onslow, Cranley
Sumberg, David


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pawsey, James
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Pollock, Alexander
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Portillo, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Powell, William (Corby)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Powley, John
Terlezki, Stefan


Price, Sir David
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Raffan, Keith
Thornton, Malcolm


Rathbone, Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Tracey, Richard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Trotter, Neville


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Ryder, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Viggers, Peter


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waddington, David


Scott, Nicholas
Walden, George


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Ward, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Silvester, Fred
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Sims, Roger
Wheeler, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Whitfield, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Whitney, Raymond


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilkinson, John


Speed, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Spencer, Derek
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Woodcock, Michael


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin



Stanbrook, Ivor
Tellers for the Noes:


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Stern, Michael
Mr. Francis Maude.

Question accordingly negatived.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): My attention has been drawn to the fact that the name of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has been mistakenly printed as a supporter of new clauses 3, 4 and 5 instead of the name of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).

Clauses 1 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

EXTENSION OF POWER TO MAKE CUSTODIAL ORDERS IN RELATION TO CIVILIANS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. James Wallace: I oppose the clause and urge the Committee to vote against it. Its purpose is to lower from 17 to 15 the age limit of male offenders upon whom a court martial or standing civilian court can impose a custodial sentence. There appears to be sexism in the clause. We are told that one of the reasons why girls are not included is the absence of a suitable institution for girls in the 15 to 17 age group. The memorandum submitted to the Select Committee by the Ministry of Defence indicated that there was a feeling

against the appropriateness of custodial sentences for girls under the age of 17, although at no stage was substantive evidence given to back up that allegation.
One of the main reasons for the clause may be to bring military law into line with the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. When the matter was discussed by the Select Committee, the civil servants who appeared before it were unable to answer without notice whether the proposal would bring military law into line with Scottish criminal law. I accept that there is merit in bringing military law into line with general civilian law, but in this case the arguments have not been particularly well made out. First, I do not believe that a court martial is necessarily the best place for such a sentence to be imposed. In the Armed Forces Act 1981 power was given to enable a court martial to sentence young service men to detention in a corrective institution. In paragraph 7 of its report on that legislation, the Select Committee queried
whether a court-martial, in sentencing a young offender … would enjoy as full an understanding of the background to the offender's case as a civil court.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when juveniles—those aged 15 to 17—come before a civilian court, there is a specially empanelled bench trained to deal with such juvenile offenders? Does he also agree that to make a 15-year-old boy appear before a general, a brigadier and a couple of colonels is an obscenity?

Mr. Wallace: I share the hon. Gentleman's view. Not only is the composition of the court undesirable for a person of that age, but a court martial is under no duty to have regard to social inquiry reports. The safeguards which are required when young children face sentences in civilian courts are not required in a court martial. It is a retrograde step that military law should impose custodial sentences at a time when there are moves towards greater emphasis on care orders for young people under 17.
In Scotland, almost invariably a young person under 16 will be dealt with at a children's hearing, where the welfare of the child will be paramount. In England, from the time of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, we have moved towards phasing out custodial sentences for children under 17. There is currently under departmental consideration a report which emphasises moving away from custodial sentences towards the concept of care orders. Therefore, it is wrong that in military law we should be retreating to the era of custodial sentences.
7.30 pm
The case put forward by the Ministry of Defence in this regard would have been stronger if it could have proved from experience some need for the power which it is seeking to give to courts martial and standing civilian courts. But, as was borne out in the Committee, the number of cases where that argument might have been used over the past three or four years is minuscule: one in 1983, two in 1982, one in 1981 and two in 1980. We are not talking of serious offences, such as rape, murder, arson or manslaughter. Almost invariably they would lead to the return of the accused person to the United Kingdom to be dealt with by the civilian courts here.
Those who gave evidence to the Committee had great difficulty in postulating circumstances in which the custodial sentence might be appropriate. Indeed, the type of serious offences with which, with some lack of conviction, they eventually came up seemed wholly


inconsistent with a custodial sentence which, under the provisions of this clause, would have a maximum duration of 12 months. The other argument put forward was that the penalty available at the moment—a reception order—could result in young people being kept in care until their 18th or 19th birthday alongside children who were in care for purely social reasons and that this mix is apparently undesirable. There is nothing in the clause which takes away the reception order, so we shall still have cases where the two groups of young people live side by side. Certainly no case was ever made out that the one or two exceptions over the past three or four years would in any respect disturb these institutions, and certainly no evidence was ever brought forward to substantiate that.
The other reason why I feel particularly strongly about this matter is that it appears to pay scant regard to the separate provisions relating to juvenile justice north of the border.
One thing that is welcome is the amendment made in Committee with regard to clause 11(3), which took account of changes in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985. I am sure that if the Commitee deletes this clause, the Minister will find means in another place of bringing back the two amendments relating to children between the ages of 17 and 21.
In Scotland, there are circumstances in which a custodial sentence can be imposed on a young person under the age of 17, but they are very rare. The sentence would be that he may be detained for a period set by the court and in such a place and in such conditions as are directed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That would happen only in the rare event of a child having been convicted by the court on indictment. The offence must be of an exceptionally serious character, such as would in any event he sent back to the United Kingdom for trial, or where, for example, an appropriate penalty cannot be imposed by a children's hearing—for example, disqualification for driving. It is certainly not envisaged that children under the age of 16 will regularly be brought before the criminal courts of Scotland. Indeed, the Lord Advocate must give express instructions before that can happen. That safeguard is not present in connection with this clause, under which a custodial sentence can be imposed. Furthermore, the court, before imposing a custodial sentence, must be assured that there is no other satisfactory method of disposal. As far as I can see, that qualification is not inserted here either.
Even then, if a child has been brought before the High Court or the sheriff court and been convicted, the court has power under the Scottish criminal procedure to remit to a children's hearing for disposal. Again, that would not apply. In fact, the provisions imposed by this clause weaken the Scottish input compared with what happens at the moment. At present, after a reception order has been made and a child has been received into care by a local authority in England or Wales nominated by the Secretary of State, if that local authority thinks it more appropriate that the child's case should be dealt with in Scotland, it can send the case, under paragraph 8 of schedule 5A to the Army Act 1955 or the equivalent provisions of the Naval Discipline Act and the Air Force Act, to an appropriate Scottish local authority, where it will be dealt with by the children's panel.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would not a Scottish service man be dealt with far more advantageously under Scottish law? Is it not an exaggeration to say that these proposals are against our law?

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Member is right. The whole concept of juvenile justice in Scotland is different from that south of the border. This provision runs wholly counter to the ethos and spirit of Scottish juvenile justice, and, indeed, it weakens what is already there. At present, if there is a reception order, a child of Scottish domicile can end up before an appropriate children's hearing. But if a custodial order is imposed under the new power, that possibility will no longer be available; it will be circumvented.
As a matter of interest, the Judge Advocate General, Mr. Stuart-Smith, at page 56 of the Select Committee report, said:
the policy, as I understand it, and the belief has always been that it is, where possible, generally preferable that people of our own country should be tried according to the system of law which they understand in a language which is their own, and that might perhaps be thought the more preferable if it is a juvenile.
Why should someone who has had no connection with England suddenly find himself subject to an alien system of law? If the clause goes through, it will cut off even the one line back to the Scottish system which now exists. An examination of the Scottish system and what happens to a child underlines the inappropriateness of what is proposed in the clause.
What kind of disposal is meant by imprisonment? Clause 11(3)(i) says:
if the offender is a male person who is under the age of 16 years, such place as the Secretary of State may direct".
What kind of places are open? Imprisonment is inappropriate for a person under the age of 21. A court may not impose a sentence of detention at either a detention centre or a young offenders' institution on someone under the age of 16. Clearly, the legislature has thought it inappropriate that children under the age of 16 should go to such institutions. If it were to be one of those institutions to which the Secretary of State decided to send him, I submit that it would be an inappropriate sentence. Alternatively, the Secretary of State might direct that the child be sent to a place of residential care, or a list D school, where he could be side by side with other children who are there not for criminal but for social reasons—the very thing that the Ministry of Defence says it is trying to avoid. That only underlines how ill-thought-out and unnecessary this provision is.
Having regard to the trend towards care orders and also the very few cases and the lack of almost any need for this power, I hope that the House will reject the clause.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): The hon. Gentleman has repeated in Committee of the whole House much of what he said in Committee and he touches on a matter which no doubt the Committee will touch on later when we come to consider the various amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) in relation to child care procedures.
As the Committee well knows, in this area of law and in many other aspects of social law, there are differences between the provisions of English and Scottish law. Far be it from me, as a non-lawyer, to adjudicate as to the relative merits of the two. I entirely understand the strength of feeling of Members of the House from Scotland


who feel that their law is superior to English law. The dilemma facing the Government is that, as far as possible, they must produce an approximation under the Armed Forces legislation to what is already on the statute book for the civil community.
The Committee will be aware that the clause gives service courts the power to impose custodial orders of up to 12 months on young males of 15 and 16 on the same lines as are provided to the criminal courts under the Criminal Justice Act 1982. That legislation was, of course, carefully considered and approved by the House. When we considered the equivalent situation in relation to this Bill, it seemed right to bring the Armed Forces legislation into line with provisions in that Act.
Although I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that we are talking about a very small number of cases where young men of 15 and 16 would commit such crimes as might require custodial sentences, the service authorities feel that there should be an appropriate penalty on the statute book. Thus, given the provisions in the 1982 Act, I must ask the Committee to accept that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps he could help the Committee. I have no intention of trying to catch him out, and it would not be right to take advantage of a non-lawyer. But this is a real point in relation to Scots law. Is it not reasonable to ask for a letter or comment from the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General, as I sincerely believe that what we are doing contravenes Scots law?

Mr. Bermingham: I had the dubious privilege of serving on this Select Committee. I put it that way with great sadness but it is a matter of record that I walked out in frustration and annoyance. I have served on many Standing Committees and I have served on a Select Committee since I came to the House. The object of a Select Committee is to investigate. Many of the points that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) raised this evening were put to witnesses in Committee. He, like me, suffered on occasions from the "choke off' system. That is when one is "choked off' in the middle of a set of questions because the majority party felt that those of us who were in the minority party did not have the right to ask such questions.
The Committee was conducted in an absolutely disgraceful way. When the Question was put on whether a witness should be heard, we were outvoted on straight party lines. At that point I decided that I had had enough, and I did not attend a single sitting thereafter. Tonight we shall try again to bring a little sanity to the Bill. We get the chance only once every five years.
I shall keep within the parameters of the clause, because my remarks are pertinent to it. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland kindly allowed me to intervene during his speech, when he spoke about incarceration. I tried to make the same point by questioning witnesses and moving amendments. Of course all the Opposition amendments automatically fell. However, as in other Committees, the voice of the Opposition is listened to, and worthwhile points are taken on board, although they may be amended. However, I say to the Minister as kindly as I can that in that Committee it was a waste of time to try to make a point. No matter how reasonable it was, we found that we were not listened to. On clause 11 we had

the first of the classic examples of that. We are talking about one or two or perhaps three cases at the most in a year. We are talking about putting children before service courts and incarcerating 15-year-old boys for up to one year. I leave aside the question of girls because there are no places for them. If there were, however, I am sure that this Government would try to incarcerate them. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Gentleman make a comment.
If he had attended the Committee he would know what we are talking about and he would have heard the evidence against us and the comments we to have put up with. A very important principle is involved here. We are trying to equate in our society the position of the volunteer with that of the civilian. Regrettably, the volunteer in our society is now becoming almost the victim of backwoodsmen-thinking. What is the purpose of seeking to imprison? Of course, if one puts the right to imprison on the statute book some court-martial somewhere will imprison as quickly as it can. It is one more bullet and whereas there have only been one or two cases in the past few years I guarantee that Scots boys of 15 or 16 will find themselves in English detention centres or gaols 'ere 12 months is out.
I make this plea from the heart to the Minister. Let not once again deafness reign in the Government ranks. For once may the voice of the Opposition and the comments we have to make be listened to. Many will be made from long experience. Perhaps then we shall get some movement on this Bill. What we have had to date on clause 11 and other matters has been almost contempt for the voice of the Opposition.

Mr. Dalyell: I thought it might be useful, before the Bill goes to the Lords, to get some comment from the Lord Advocate.

Mr. Stanley: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the drafting of these provisions was carried out in close consultation with the Scottish Office and it is wholly familiar with these provisions and this reflects the collective position of the whole Government.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 68.

Division No. 132]
[7.47 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Amess, David
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Chope, Christopher


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Conway, Derek


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cope, John


Batiste, Spencer
Couchman, James


Bellingham, Henry
Dicks, Terry


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Dunn, Robert


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eggar, Tim


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Blackburn, John
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Body, Sir Richard
Favell, Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forth, Eric


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fox, Marcus


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Brinton, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Galley, Roy


Buck, Sir Antony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Gregory, Conal






Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Pollock, Alexander


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Ground, Patrick
Rowley, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Raffan, Keith


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Rowe, Andrew


Harris, David
Ryder, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Henderson, Barry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hind, Kenneth
Silvester, Fred


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Sims, Roger


Holt, Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Speed, Keith


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Spencer, Derek


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hunter, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Robert
Stern, Michael


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Jessel, Toby
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sumberg, David


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Taylor, John (Solihull)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lang, Ian
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Thornton, Malcolm


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thurnham, Peter


Lilley, Peter
Tracey, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Lyell, Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Waddington, David


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Waller, Gary


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Major, John
Watts, John


Malone, Gerald
Whitfield, John


Marland, Paul
Wilkinson, John


Mather, Carol
Wolfson, Mark


Mellor, David
Wood, Timothy


Merchant, Piers



Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moate, Roger
Mr. Francis Maude and


Newton, Tony
Mr. Tony Durant.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Haynes, Frank


Alton, David
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Howells, Geraint


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lamond, James


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Litherland, Robert


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Livsey, Richard


Buchan, Norman
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Caborn, Richard
Loyden, Edward


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McNamara, Kevin


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McWilliam, John


Clarke, Thomas
Madden, Max


Clay, Robert
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Maxton, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Michie, William


Dalyell, Tam
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Deakins, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dewar, Donald
Nellist, David


Dixon, Donald
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dormand, Jack
Park, George


Eastham, Ken
Parry, Robert


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Patchett, Terry


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pike, Peter


Fisher, Mark
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Flannery, Martin
Redmond, Martin


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Godman, Dr Norman
Robertson, George


Golding, John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Gould, Bryan
Skinner, Dennis





Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wallace, James



Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Alex Carlile and


Wilson, Gordon
Mr. David Penhaligon.


Winnick, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

CHANGE OF PLACE OF SAFETY AND RETURN TO UNITED KINGDOM OF CHILDREN IN NEED OF CARE OR CONTROL

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 14, line 23, at end add—
`(7) In section 14 of the Armed Forces Act 1981, for subsection— (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(4) The grounds which justify the making of such an order are that there is reasonable cause to believe that damage to the child's health or well-being is likely unless he is immediately removed to or detained in a place of protection for the duration of the order.".'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 14, line 23, at end add—
`(7) In section 14 of the Armed Forces Act 1981 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(6A) (a) for the purpose of any hearing at which an order under this section is being sought, the officer, who under subsections (5) and (6) above has the power to make the order, may insist that a person be nominated to protect and represent the interests of the child at any hearing.
(b) A person nominated under paragraph (a) above shall be described as the `safeguarder' of the child.".'.

No. 3, in page 14, line 23, at end add—
`(7) In section 14 of the Armed Forces Act 1981, after subsection (9) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(9A) An officer making an order under this section shall have power to authorise the withholding of the childs' address and of access, and to specify the conditions on which access should be granted.".'.

No. 4, in page 14, line 23, at end add
`(7) In section 14 of the Armed Forces Act 1981 there shall be added at the end the following subsection—
(12) (a) At any hearing overseas or in the UK at which an order under this section is being sought, the parent or parents shall have the right to attend and to nominate a representative to attend on their behalf.
(b) The parent or parents or their nominated representative shall have the right to appeal against an order made under this section on their child". '.

No. 5, in page 14, line 23, at end add
`(7) In section 14 of the Armed Forces Act 1981, there shall be added the following subsection—
(12) (a) Written statements supporting an application to be made under this section should be provided at the hearing where practicable, or in any case within 12 hours of the order being made. The officers making the order must record in writing his reasons for doing so.
(b) The written application and the reasons for the order should be supplied after the hearing by the applicant to the parents and the child, and the parents should be given information by the officer presiding about their right to seek legal advice.".'.

Dr. Godman: I am deeply interested in the detection, prevention and treatment of child abuse, which is a crucial issue even if only a handful of cases each year is involved. As I said once in Committee, there was only one Jasmine Beckford, and that little girl, because of negligence and


other reasons, is now dead. With the amendments, I seek to strengthen the position of a child who, regrettably, is unfortunately placed at the centre of an application for a place of safety order.
Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 strengthen amendment No. 2 which is concerned principally with the child' interests. I hope that it is in order for me to say at this point that I shall seek a Division on amendment No. 2. The interests of the child or children should be given primacy over the interests of all others. I believe that the Government are reluctant to accept the amendments.
8 pm
The 1981 report of the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee rightly paid close regard to the serious problems surrounding children at risk. Paragraph 10 on page 6 of the report stated:
The grounds on which an order may be made (e.g. that the child is being ill-treated, exposed to moral danger, or beyond control) follow civil legislation.
That is what the Minister suggested when he said that in military law the Government sought an approximation to extant law in the United Kingdom. The Committee continued:
One lacuna, however, in its likely operation came to light in the course of evidence taken from the Ministry of Defence. Unlike Clause 13, the Clause contains no provisions regulating the return to the United Kingdom of children affected by it once the short-term holding orders have run their course. It is envisaged that, if the most secure future for a child is adjudged to be within the care of a United Kingdom local authority, then the child's family would be returned administratively to the UK, whereupon the child could be taken into care under English law.
I am not happy with that reference to English law. If nothing else, it reveals a lamentable ignorance of Scottish law in terms of the detection, prevention and treatment of child abuse. In fairness, I should point out that there were no Scottish Members on that Committee—the members were all from south of the border. In fairness to the Government, I point out that clause 13 is to be welcomed, albeit with serious reservations—hence the amendments.
The report of the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee, which was published yesterday, dealt with the need to defend and promote the interests of children in cases of child abuse. This time the Committee acknowledged the difference between Scots law and practices and English law and practices in the detection and treatment of child abuse. The Committee was made aware of those highly significant differences by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and myself.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: A powerful combination.

Dr. Godman: The report by the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee has a bearing on amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. Paragraph 16 on pages viii and ix states:
The procedures under service law for dealing with children at risk are broadly comparable to those under English civilian law. Different procedures, however, operate in Scotland. Under Scots law, a child detained in a place of safety must be brought before a 'children's hearing', composed of 3 lay members, within 1 or 2 days. The hearing has power to appoint a `safeguarder' to represent the child's interests.
I used that phrase in one of my amendments. The paragraph continues:
Both the child and its parents have the right to be represented at the hearing, and to appeal against the hearing's decision. These various safeguards for both the child and its parents do not exist in English law or, consequently, in military law.

My amendment seeks "an approximation"—to use the Minister's words—to Scots civilian law rather than English civilian law. The report continues:
The Committee accept that the special circumstances of service life overseas may make it difficult for a full range of safeguards on the Scots model to be built into the system for dealing with children at risk. Nonetheless, we recommend that the MoD consider whether it would not be possible to extend to military law some at least of the relevant provisions of Scots law, in order better to protect the interests of children and parents.
That is precisely what my amendment seeks to accomplish.
As I said to the Select Committee, Scots law is superior to English law. I make no apology for that statement. It is easier for me to say that than it is for the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, because I am a Yorkshire man who has been domiciled for a long time in Scotland and who had the good sense to marry a Scots girl. I can say with no false modesty that Scots law is superior with respect to the detection, prevention and treatment of child abuse.
Amendment No. 1 closely follows a recommendation of the review of child care law, which was a report to Ministers by an interdepartmental working party which was published last year. Paragraph 13.8 on page 86 of that excellent report stated:
We are concerned that the present grounds for an order do not address the purpose of removing the child. Further, by expressly referring to the grounds for care proceedings in section 1(2) of the 1969 Act"—
an English Act—
the wording of section 28(1) might have contributed to the frequent use of place of safety orders as a means of starting care proceedings. An emergency protection order should not become a matter of course
that is the term used instead of a place of safety order—
where care proceedings are a likely option. We recommend that the grounds for such an order should be that if the child is not removed or detained now he is likely to suffer harm. Put another way, the child must be at risk of damage to his health or wellbeing which necessitates his immediate removal or detention for a brief period.
The report goes on to say in paragraph 13.10:
We are aware that our suggested grounds … concentrate on apprehended harm to the child. This is consistent with the rationale for an emergency order. The prospective grounds clearly increase the risk of unwarranted intervention. However, we would limit intervention to cases where it is necessary to make the order for the period in question, so that the order is precisely addressed to the needs of the children.
The report was discussing English law. It went on:
Further, the magistrate should be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that such harm is likely to the child. This is a stricter test than the present requirement that the court be satisfied that the applicant has reasonable cause to believe that certain conditions exist. Finally we consider that the word `likely' places a sufficiently difficult burden of proof on the applicant to prevent unwarranted orders.
Those two paragraphs from that fine report substantiate the argument for amendment No. 1.
In that context — I promise that this is the last quotation from that report—paragraph 13.11 says:
It is not for us to suggest the exact wording of new grounds. However the present wording of the power to 'detain and take' the child to a place of safety causes problems in practice. Some magistrates may be reluctant to grant orders for children who are in hospital, since they do not need to be 'taken' to a place of protection, even though detention may be in their interests. Revised grounds should enable such children to be made subject to an order if they are at risk of harm.
I do not want to take up too much time so I shall now deal with amendment No. 2, which I think is the linchpin of these amendments. The amendment seeks to employ Scots law and Scottish practices in order better to protect


the interests of the child or children concerned. Let me remind the House that where an applicant—for example, a police officer or social worker—believes that a child has been physically or sexually abused he may seek to place all of the children in the family in care. Most of the emphasis in discussions and debates of this kind concentrates on the child. However, the social worker, policeman or perhaps the paediatrician who has examined a child for non-accidental injuries may urge the taking into safety of all of the children in the family.
8.15 pm
In Scotland, we have what are known as children's hearings. They play a decisive role in combating the social evil of child abuse. The children's panel or hearings were set up under the provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and amending legislation under a Conservative Government. Under English law the child has no right to be represented at hearings. Under Scottish law—I am using a document which was kindly provided to Members of the Committee by the Ministry of Defence—the child has a right to be represented before the children's hearing. The panels are comprised of three lay persons plus a reporter. The reporters are employed by the regional and island councils but they cannot be dismissed other than by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Therefore, there are safeguards for the children and the parents. In addition to the right to be represented at a hearing the document says:
where the panel"—
it means the hearing—
considers that there is a conflict between the interests of the child and those of his parents, the panel may appoint a 'safeguarder' to represent the child's interests.
That is an important development in the process of dealing with child abuse. That is why I have used the term in amendment No. 2.
In Scotland a safeguarder may be a retired social worker. On our list of safeguarders in the Strathclyde region we have Miss Vera Hiddleston who is the head of the social work training unit at the Jordanhill college of education. She is a vastly experienced specialist in this field. It is such people who can be appointed by a children's hearing to act as the safeguarder of the child.
Time is against me so I shall conclude my remarks on amendment No. 2 by urging the Committee to accept, apart from all else, that the amendment is presented with sincerity and in good faith. As I said earlier, and I am willing to repeat it, in this case the law north of the border is better than that south of the border.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to protect the child, or children, and their caretakers. Let me give an example. If a child of less than five years was removed from his parents stationed in, for example, Osnabruck, and returned to the Strathclyde region in Scotland, no one will tell me that such a child would be returned to England. He would be placed with foster parents. No child being taken into care in the Strathclyde region goes anywhere other than to foster parents. Such foster parents are most carefully selected by the social work department in Strathclyde. It may well be that there are all kinds of risks involved here, not only to the child but to the foster parents. Therefore, it is important that the authorities and officers concerned have the right to refuse access and to refuse to disclose the whereabouts of such a child. At the same time we should remember the wise words of the working party on child care law:

If the applicant is other than a local authority, he should inform the relevant authority of the order, the child's address and who has the charge of the child at that address, and whether access is to be granted. Local authorities should have to satisfy themselves of the welfare of the child under the order, including the arrangements for access.
Those are recommendations in the report, but it is established practice in Scotland.
They should be able to apply for the emergency order"—
the place of safety order—
to be transferred to them from the applicant if transfer would be in the child's interests. The local authority should continue to be under a duty to pay the expenses of the person providing the place of protection (section 73(2) of the 1980 Act).
Amendment No. 4 is concerned with the rights of parents. I think that it is only right and proper that the interests of the child should always take priority, but we have also to pay close and serious regard to the rights of the parents. Let me remind the House that, in many cases of child abuse—physical or sexual—only one of the parents is involved. The husband and father or cohabitee may subject the mother and child or children to physical abuse of the most violent kind. In such cases, why should the mother suffer? Why should the mother be separated from her child or children? In cases such as this the applicant may recommend that all the children should be taken into care. Why should the mother be torn apart from her family in such circumstances?
The objective in child care law—it surely coincides with Conservative party philosophy—is the maintenance of the family as an integrated unit. The mother must have her rights protected and promoted by those in authority especially in the dreadful circumstances in which a woman may find herself.
In support of the amendment I quote, with modesty, an amendment that was proposed by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow to the report of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, but which Government Members of the Committee chose to vote down:
There is, however, a need for parents to have an opportunity to be heard and to be supported by a representative at a hearing where the decision as to whether or not to return the child to the United Kingdom is made. If a decision is made to return the child to the United Kingdom, then there would need to be safeguards both to protect the child's welfare and to ensure that parents can attend and be represented at a court hearing in the United Kingdom. The Report to Ministers of an interdepartmental working group on English Child Care Law regards as unsatisfactory the present procedure under English law whereby only the child and the applicant are parties to care proceedings".
I found that appalling and that was why I moved the amendment. The amendment continues:
The Report recommends that under a new law parents should be parties to proceedings. It is our view that this reflects a sensible and humane approach to a most serious problem. We therefore recommend that military law concerned with children at risk should take cognisance of the Report's recommendations in this regard.
I regret to say that that amendment was lost.
Amendment 5 also seeks to protect the interests of the parents. I make no apology for returning once more to the interdepartmental report. If one studies the wording of the amendment, one appreciates that the quotation from paragraph 14.20 on page 98 of the report is apposite:
The court … should be under a duty to serve notice of the proceedings on the "parents" …anyone with charge or control of the child (this would include foster parents); and anyone with whom the child has had his home for six weeks or more within the six months preceding the application. In addition, it should


have a discretion to serve notice on any other person who has or may have an interest in the proceedings and wishes to participate in them".
Taken together, amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 seek to strengthen the position of both the child and the parents. However amendment No. 2 is primus inter pares—it has to be. The child's interests and welfare, present and fuure, must always, whether we are discussing a family stationed in Osnabruck or a family in Greenock and Port Glasgow, be given priority. I suggest, with humility, to this Committee that my amendment will strengthen clause 13 in the new Bill. It will bring about an approximation to military law to Scots law—Scots law at its finest, Scots child care law.

Mr. Wilson: I wish to speak in favour of the amendments put forward by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I do so largely because of the excellent way in which he has put them forward. I have not had the experience of serving on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill and therefore I come fairly fresh to the subject and to the legislation. I have had some experience of child law in my past career.
I do not necessarily share the view of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow in adopting, or seeking to put forward, amendments to the Armed Forces Bill to bring the law of England into line with the law of Scotland. I can accept his argument about the superiority of the Scottish law, but I would not necessarily show the same degree of humility as I am both a Scottish Nationalist and a Scottish lawyer to boot.
I wish to raise another serious principle which is bound up with the terms of these amendments and the Bill as it is to be framed. England is displaying imperialism in seeking to impose upon Scotland any part of the English law. It is an entrenched part of the Treaty of Union that Scotland would not have imposed upon it any part of the law of England. Regardless of that international treaty, which the House has broken time and time again, provisions have been adopted which put the Scots at a disadvantage. It is a constitutional right that the Scots should be exposed to their own legal system and should not, whether it is inferior or superior, have any provisions of an alien legal system imposed upon them. It does not matter whether someone is serving with the armed forces or is a civilian. It is utterly wrong that, as citizens, such provisions should be imposed upon them.
I concede that there may be special arguments concerning the fact that service personnel are volunteers and are alleged to serve in the United Kingdom, not the English armed forces. Thus it could be argued that they have consented to accept the English legal system. Nevertheless, it cannot be accepted under any circumstances that any spouse or child or service personnel should have their birthright, the Scots legal system, removed from them.
I support the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow in terms which may cause him some embarrassment. It is the constitutional right of Scots to live under their own legal system. The fact that one person may serve in the armed forces does not give any Government or the House authority, in terms of the Treaty of Union, to dilute the privileges to which they are entitled by domicile and birth.
If it is correct that the child, or indeed the parents, may not be entitled to representation in connection with the proceedings that may be taken under the Bill, I would argue that that is in defiance of natural justice. I should be interested to hear the Minister's reply. It is an essential part of human rights that we are entitled to representation. No decision should be taken in secret or taken apart from one party or another.
If I follow the case presented by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, the Scottish system confers those rights. If, under the Bill, the British system does not provide those essential rights, perhaps it is time somebody raised the matter with the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. Obviously, it is no surprise to me that Britain has been hauled before that court more frequently than any other member of the European Community for a lack of constitutional protection of rights which are safeguarded to nationals of other countries. It seems wrong that such a right should be denied, and I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about that. If what he says is correct, I am both shocked and alarmed that those rights of natural justice should not be afforded under the legislation.
For that reason, if not for the vital constitutional provision that I mentioned, I hope that the Minister will ensure that no Scottish citizen is deprived of his legal rights under the Scottish legal code.

Mr. Stanley: I certainly appreciate the detailed and expert consideration that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has brought to this aspect of the Bill throughout our proceedings both in Committee and on the Floor of the House tonight. As he acknowledged, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has also made a considerable contribution.
I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow tabled his amendments early, as I certainly wish to consider them carefully. I hope that he will he able to conclude from my response that, although for the reasons that I shall endeavour to explain I cannot meet him in all respects, we have taken his amendments seriously and made a proper, considered response to them.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) made a characteristically powerful, anti-imperialist speech. I wonder whether, if clause 13 had been based entirely on Scots law, he would have made exactly the same speech. As a lawyer, I wish to make a simple practical point to him. I hope that he will recognise as a lawyer that it is only possible and sensible for the services to administer their disciplinary legislation in the context often of small groups, units, battalions, and sometimes even smaller groups that may be posted overseas, on the basis of a single corpus of law. It would not be practical to provide within a single unit the operation of, for example, Scots law and English law simultaneously in relation to the same offence. Having said that, I hope that the best points of both English and Scots law can be combined in legislation. We in the armed services would certainly wish to follow the best legislation that can be put together.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance, but it is always strange to me that the code of law which seems to be adopted to deal with the armed forces comes purely from the English common law, and that little Scots law is borrowed, especially regarding the


identification, representation and statements made under the criminal law as it may apply to courts martial. Will the Minister explain why Scots law is never adopted as the major code, and why we always seem to rely on English law in these matters?

Mr. Stanley: In this area we tend to take the lead from the Department of Health and Social Security. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes a careful study of what happens regarding the same social problems north of the border when he makes amendments to legislation. I am sure he wishes to come up with the most satisfactory legislative solutions.

Mr. Wilson: I am not reassured by that. I have ongoing correspondence with the Treasury and the DHSS both of which refuse to admit the differences in majority and the rights of young people from the age of 16 onwards. They, too, follow the English pattern.

Mr. Stanley: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am relieved that that correspondence is not with me.
I should like to deal with each of the important amendments in turn. Regarding amendment No. 1, the present wording of section 14(4) of the Armed Forces Act 1981, which the hon. Gentleman seeks to amend, deliberately follows that of section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 which applies to England and Wales. I hope that the House will agree that in such matters it is right and proper that the services should adopt the same criteria, and work to the same principles in deciding whether a child should be removed to a place of safety as those which would apply were the case being considered by civil authorities under the equivalent civil legislation.
The hon. Gentleman's proposed amendment would remove that commonality with civil child care legislation in England and Wales, and substitute different criteria, which, for example, would make it difficult to remove a child beyond the control of his parents to a place of safety.

Mr. Bermingham: rose—

Mr. Stanley: I shall give way, but it may be helpful if I conclude my remarks on amendment No. 1.
Obviously, I appreciate that the equivalent Scottish legislation, which is section 37(2) of the Social work (Scotland) Act 1968, contains no provision for a place of safety order where the child is beyond the control of his parents. I am also aware that a Scottish hon. Member—indeed, this evening we have already seen this—is unlikely to be impressed with the merits of English and Welsh legislation, compared with equivalent Scottish legislation, although he will perhaps draw some comfort from the fact that the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 was of course the work of a previous Labour Government.
The hon. Gentleman will, however, be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is conducting a review of child care law. I am sure that the differences between the law in Scotland and in England and Wales on this point will be carefully considered. Should my right hon. Friend decide to amend the Children and Young Persons Act on that point, I am sure that we would want to consider appropriate amendments to the armed forces legislation.
Meanwhile. I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not feel it would be right for me to anticipate the

outcome of my right hon. Friend's review and embark on a piecemeal amendment of these provisions in the armed forces legislation. For those reasons I am afraid that I am not able to accept amendment No. 1.

Mr. Bermingham: While I listened with care to the Minister's remarks and understand that, if further amendments to the law are carried, it is possibly preemptive at this stage to amend the law in anticipation of what might or might not happen, does the Minister agree that it may be necessary for the Ministry to take on board the consideration of a child's position in being returned to Scotland as opposed to England because in Scotland a child has certain rights which he would not have in England? If the Minister will undertake to consider that matter, it may assist my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) with his amendments, without having to press them to a vote.

Mr. Stanley: As I understand it, in the normal course of events a Scottish child would be returned to Scotland and be dealt with under Scottish legislation.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about the review by the Secretary of State for Social Services. Can he undertake that, if legislation is introduced, it will be so phrased that this legislation will automatically be amended? We will not then have to wait three or four years for suitable alterations to be made in the next quinquennial review.

Mr. Stanley: In answering that question, one becomes involved in the issue of the scope of legislation that is at the moment entirely hypothetical. I cannot give an undertaking such as the hon. Gentleman asks for. I can, however, assure him that we are anxious that in all aspects of legislation, and especially the sensitive and important area of social legislation, service legislation should be up to the civil standard and should reflect the latest thinking of the Government. If it were practical and possible in legislative terms, we would want our legislation to be kept in line with amending legislation that might be produced by another Department. If it were possible to use another Department's Bill to produce an equivalent amendment in our own legislation, we would, in principle, want to do so.
Amendment No. 2 provides for the appointment of what is termed a safeguarder to protect a child's interests at any hearings. This proposal is derived from Scots law on child care. However, in Scots law a safeguarder is not appointed when the initial application is made to the justice of the peace or the sheriff for a place of safety warrant, but only at a later stage, before a children's panel, when the child's longer-term future is being considered—in other words, once care proceedings are under way. However, service law does not deal with care proceedings but only with the temporary removal of the children from danger. The proceedings are equivalent to a place of safety order under English law and to the stage prior to a children's hearing in Scotland.
Just as there is no occasion for the provision of a safeguarder at that stage in either English or Scots civil law, so there is no occasion for such provision at the equivalent stage in service procedure. That is why the clause is drafted as it is. I hope that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, will understand that at the equivalent stage there is no provision for a safeguarder either in Scots or English law.

Mr. Wilson: If the child were at risk while the parents and the child were, for instance, in Hong Kong, and it was necessary for the child to be taken to a place of safety for reasons that we all understand—I accept the Minister's argument—what would happen? Would the child be taken straight back to Scotland if the parents were still based in Hong Kong? At what stage, and under what procedure, would the long-term arrangements for the child's future be taken care of? It is peculiar to take a child away to Scotland to make use of the rights of representation if the parents are still in Hong Kong, yet the Scottish proceedings would not apply in Hong Kong, or under the Army Acts.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman refers to the relationship between the short-term and the long-term procedures. I will deal with that on another amendment.
I assume that the intention of amendment No. 3 is that there should be power to withhold details of the whereabouts of the actual place of safety from the parents of the child on whom an order is made, if that is justified.
I should first stress that there are likely to be very few cases indeed, if any, in which such action would be justified. The services are likely in every case to want to reassure parents that their children are in good hands. Of course, where a child has been, or may be, the victim of serious abuse by a parent, it would be important to keep the parent away from the child. In such rare cases commanding officers would invaribly have adminstrative means at their disposal to select a place of safety under service control that would effectively ensure the exclusion of the parent.
The amendment of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow would in fact not be consistent with either English or Scots civil law. No powers for withholding a child's address and access to the child have been given either to the magistrate when a place of safety order is granted in England, or to a sheriff in Scotland when an authorisation by a court or justice of the peace is made for the detention of a child in a place of safety pending arrangements for bringing him before a children's hearing.
8.45 pm
The amendment also contains a number of technical deficiencies. For example, it is not made an offence to disclose the child's address, or to make provision for the revocation or variation of orders denying access.
However, I assure the hon. Member that we shall review this matter as part of the reconsideration of section 14 of the 1981 Act that the Select Committee has asked us to undertake, and in the light of any changes that may emerge from the DHSS review of child care legislation to which I have referred.
I know that the laudable intentions of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow in amendment No. 4 and the other amendments to clause 13 that he has tabled are to protect as far as possible the interests of both parents and children when place of safety orders are being considered. However, I think that he may have somewhat misunderstood the purpose of the place of safety order provisions in service legislation.
The provisions that the hon. Member envisages for attendance or representation at hearings, and for appeal, are of course entirely appropriate where child care proceedings are being considered, and where the child's longer-term future is at stake. However, section 14 of the Armed Forces Act 1981 does not deal with care

proceedings. It deals only with temporary emergency place of safety orders which may only be made overseas—not in the United Kingdom, contrary to the amendment—and which can last for a maximum of 28 days in total.
Such orders are designed primarily to remove children as quickly as possible from a potential source of danger and to provide for their safe keeping until the way ahead is determined. They are thus broadly equivalent to place of safety proceedings in England and Wales or to the stage prior to a children's hearing in Scotland.
The next step might be either to return the child to the family or to transfer him or her to the United Kingdom, into the hands of local welfare authorities which will decide what further action by way of care proceedings might be required. Such further care proceedings would take place under local civil law—either English or Scots law—where the statutory provision as to representation or appeal would apply. The amendment would go far beyond the equivalent provisions affecting the initial granting of a place of safety order in England or Scotland so far as attendance, representation and appeal by parents are concerned.
Service law already goes further than either English or Scots law in providing that parents have a right, wherever practicable, to make representations to the commanding officer before the order is made. It would not be right to go further. To do so would risk delaying proceedings while possibly leaving a child in a dangerous situation. I am sure that that would not be acceptable to the House.
In amendment No. 5, the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow proposes that there should be written statements supporting applications for a place of safety order. The suggestion derives, perhaps, from a misunderstanding of the type of procedures involved. Service place of safety orders do not involve written applications and formal hearings. They are designed to react swiftly to events where the child is in immediate danger. What usually happens is that a case conference will hastily be convened involving medical staff, social workers and others with knowledge of the family. If they decide that a place of safety order is necessary, a request for such an order will be made to the commanding officer.
What the hon. Gentleman proposes in terms of written applications goes far beyond anything in English child care law or, indeed, in Scots law in relation to the initial application to a justice of the peace or a sheriff. This provision might cause an unacceptable delay in removing a child from the source of danger. Of course. where a child is transferred back to the United Kingdom and after care proceedings are instituted by the local authorities, the services make arrangements to provide all the necessary supporting evidence and documentation to the United Kingdom courts.
However, on another aspect of the amendment, I am sympathetic to the proposal that the officer making the order should record on it his reasons for doing so and the fact that the parents should formally be told of the reasons. In practice, it is most unlikely that parents would be left in ignorance of the reasons, but, having considered this, I have decided that, from now on, as a matter of administrative practice, the officer making the place of safety order should include on the form the grounds on which it is made and a copy of the order should be given to the parents or guardian of the child.
The appropriate service guidelines will be amended accordingly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is practicable to accept the substance of his amendment by the administrative change that I have described.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment also refers to the need to remind parents of their right to seek legal advice. I have decided to accept the substance of the hon. Gentleman's amendment on that point. However, I should explain that the Queen's regulations for each service already contain paragraphs which make it clear that for those serving overseas service lawyers will provide legal advice free of charge on non-criminal matters, including matrimonial and family affairs. By amending the appropriate service guidelines, I shall ensure that, in future, parents whose children are subject to place of safety orders have their attention drawn to the relevant paragraphs of the Queen's regulations.
I hope that, on the basis of what I have said and the responses that I have made, the hon. Gentleman will believe that his amendments—which are important—have been carefully considered. I hope that he believes that this is an acceptable response and that his major anxieties have been met.

Mr. Dalyell: Often in Committee we are a bit curmudgeonly, but I wish to say two things. In my constituency experience, the services, almost without exception, have been sensitive and helpful in handling these difficult matters, and credit is due to the good sense of commanding officers. I very much welcome what the Minister of State said. Some formal notification of the reasons is the answer to the problems that some of us have experienced.

Dr. Godman: I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). In the rare constituency cases that have arisen concerning the sons of my constituents serving overseas, I have been most grateful for the sensitive care and attention that has been devoted to the parents. I am pleased to put that on the official record.
I hope that I am not whingeing when I say that, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), I am not a lawyer, so I am a little handicapped. I wish to read what the Minister said, although I assure him that I listened most attentively to his remarks. Nor am I served by the platoon—at times it looked like a battalion—of Ministry of Defence officials who gave evidence to the Select Committee. Much of my experience is based on the good advice and guidance given to me by my wife who, as I told Mr. Fracer of the Ministry of Defence, is a senior social worker and highly experienced in these matters. If I have made any mistakes, they are entirely my responsibility and nothing to do with my wife. My dear wife, who is from Govan, is a little larger than I am.
Although I do not have the benefit of a platoon of specialists, I am grateful for the care and attention that has been given to the amendments. I accept that, in several instances, they are technically inadequate. That can only be blamed on my ignorance of these matters. In the Select Committee, and this evening, I have tried to establish the need to protect the interests of the child. If such dreadful circumstances were to arise in connection with the child of a Scottish soldier, which led to the child being removed

from its family, that child must be returned to Scotland—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East said, to his place of birth or where he and his family are domiciled.
When the Minister dealt with amendment No. 3, he said that a Scottish child would be returned to care in Scotland. Having been given that assurance—I know that the Minister is honourable—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 13 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

COMPOSITION OF COURTS-MARTIAL

`(4) After section 89 of the Army Act 1955 there shall be inserted the following section—
89A Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 87, 88 and 89 in the case of a general, district, of field general court martial convened to try a person of below commissioned rank, the defendant shall have the right to insist that at least one member of the court-martial is also a person of below commissioned rank.".

(2) After section 89 of the Air Force Act 1955 there shall be inserted the following section—
89A Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 87, 88 and 89 in the case of a general, district, or field general court martial convened to try a person of below commissioned rank, the defendant shall have the right to insist that at least one member of the court-martial is also a person of below commissioned rank.".

(3) In Section 54 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, at the end there shall be added the following subsection—
(9) In the case of a court martial convened to try a person of below commissioned rank, the defendant shall have the right to insist that at least one member of the court-martial is also a person of below commissioned rank.—[Dr. Godman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Godman: I beg to move, That the clause he read a Second time.
The time has come to change the composition of courts martial where those proceeded against are of noncommissioned rank. In essence, the accused—for example, a sergeant—should have the right if he cares to exercise it to be judged by his peers as well as by his superiors. That is my sincere view and I have subscribed to it for many years.
I should point out that my experience of these matters is severely dated. But I have had the honour as a national service man to serve with that most honourable group of people, the royal military police. Therefore, I have some experience, albeit of a severely dated nature.

9 pm

Mr. Dalyell: I am not entirely happy about this. One does not want to put it frivolously, but are we sure that we want to put the royal military policeman in that position, let alone the regimental sergeant-major because it might be the RSM or the company sergeant-major who was delegated to that task?

Dr. Godman: That is a pertinent question. I take the point that if the accused who was being proceeded against were to be a member of the Corps of Royal Military Police, I would see—as I say, based on my severely dated experience—no objection being made simply because his peer was a senior non-commissioned officer of the corps. But I take my hon. Friend's point. It is a serious matter.

Mr. Bermingham: I hope that my hon. Friend will not think that I am being in any way facetious when I ask him whether he agrees that, just as a civilian can challenge up to three members of a jury, the service man might be allowed to challenge the odd member of the court martial, bearing in mind that they are judges of both fact and law?

Dr. Godman: That would be a useful regulation. I regret that that does not appear in my new clause.
I said that this is my sincere view. I have discussed the idea with a number of former senior non-commissioned officers, principally from the Army, and they expressed sympathy and support for such an innovation. I do not have documentary evidence of that sympathy and support but that has been said to me not 20 yards from where I stand now.
I have no doubt that that view is regarded as an abomination by the hidebound or seemingly hidebound Ministry of Defence, as well as, perhaps, some Conservative Members who are present tonight. I have no doubt that we shall hear once again the classic conservative argument that the moment has not yet arrived; that the moment is not propitious for such radical change. Nevertheless, I shall pursue the argument.
Support for this conservative approach to the composition of the courts martial is often sought from the findings of the Lewis report, which was published in 1946. That committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Lewis, stated that it would not recommend that other ranks served on courts martial.
However, Mr. Raymond Blackburn, a Labour Member of Parliament, added by way of an addendum a note of dissent to the conclusions and recommendations of the Lewis report. My amendment is in broad sympathy with what he said. Incidentally, Mr. Blackburn served as a captain with that fine county regiment, the East Yorkshire regiment, my late father's regiment. My father was awarded the military medal when he served with, I think, the fourth battalion of that regiment. Mr. Blackburn was also, I believe, the author of a pamphlet entitled "The Soldier's Guide to His Rights and Duties".
Let me quote from Mr. Blackburn's note of dissent these long years ago. He said:
While subscribing to the Report as a whole, I regret that on one subject I do not wholly agree with my colleagues on the Committee, namely on the composition of the Court in Courts-Martial. I believe:—
(a) That a private soldier, lance-corporal, or corporal (or lance-bombardier or bombardier) should have the right to demand that one corporal (or bombardier) should sit on a Court-Martial composed of three persons trying him, or that two corporals (or bombardiers) should sit on a Court-Martial composed of five persons trying him.
I make no apologies for quoting liberally from Mr.Blackburn's note of dissent. He went on to say:

"(b) That a serjeant or warrant officer should have right to demand that one serjeant or warrant officer, as the case may be, should sit on a Court-Martial composed of three persons trying him, or that two serjeants or warrant officers should sit on a Court-Martial composed of five persons trying him.
(c) That the remaining members of the Court should be officers and should be the only members of the Court determining sentence."

One can see the gist of his remarks. He is suggesting something which seems to me to be analogous to the civilian jury system. He then said:

In civilian life a man charged with a serious offence has in effect the right to demand trial by his peers because a jury is taken at random from all the sections of the community to try him.
I have a great deal of sympathy with that. I also sympathise with what Mr. Blackburn said next:
In the services, one cannot introduce a similar provision to ensure that a jury is drawn at random from all members of the services, because to do so would conflict with discipline.
I would not disagree with Mr. Blackburn there. He continued:
The central problem in Courts-Martial is the reconciliation of discipline with justice. But I suggest that an attempt should be made to assimilate Court-Martial procedure to civilian procedure in this important respect, if it can be done without affecting discipline.

Mr. Bermingham: It seems something of an anachronism, for example, that on a Thursday a man is a sergeant-major and is not eligible to sit on a court martial yet he can be promoted the following Thursday to be a lieutenant and he is eligible. Does that make much difference, in my hon. Friend's opinion?

Dr. Godman: As I said in Committee, somebody who is promoted from the rank of regimental sergeant-major to lieutenant in my view would be precisely the same kind of man. It may well be that the Minister of Defence, other Ministers and some Conservative Members would argue that such a man would receive the appropriate training to enable him to perform a useful role when sitting on a court martial. With regard to the proportion of officers who have come up through the ranks, I seem to remember having been told by Ministry of Defence officials that in the Navy the figure was in the region of 20 per cent. and in the Royal Air Force it was about the same proportion, with a percentage not so very different for the Army.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Those figures are correct, but they exclude officers who have been promoted before the age of 30 from the ranks. In other words, the numbers of serving officers who have served in the ranks are higher than the figures mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful for that intervention as the hon. Gentleman has considerable experience, I think I am right in saying, in the Royal Navy and in service matters in general. His graceful intervention supports what I was saying in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham).
If I may press on with Mr. Blackburn, he went on to say:
But corporals (or bombardiers) are men who have received promotion because they have a sense of responsibility and discipline. If they can be trusted with the lives of their sections in the exacting predicaments of battle, surely they can be trusted to serve as members of a jury. The proposal which I have made would limit their conscience to serving as jury men, as they would not be consulted on sentence.
There I part company with Mr. Blackburn, though in general I have a great deal of sympathy for his remarks. His note of dissent stands the test of time.
Paragraph 16 on page ix of the 1981 report of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill says:
Various evidence was taken by the Committee on the composition of courts-martial. We asked in particular whether the time had come for those below commissioned rank to be represented on courts-martial. Although it was denied by the Ministry of Defence that there was any identifiable wish for such a change within the Services and argued by them that American and Canadian experience showed a majority of Servicemen preferring to be tried by officers rather than by their peers, we


did not feel that these defences of the status quo were wholly satisfactory. The absence of general discontent with the existing system does not necessarily mean the denial of the right of choice to those, even if only a minority, who would prefer to be tried under some closer approximation to the jury system. It is possible that a greater flexibility in administering Service justice might be found which would not undermine the virtues of the present arrangements. Since this issue has not been subjected to a full review since the Lewis Committee and the Pilcher Committee in the 1940s we believe that such a review is now due and ought to be conducted before the introduction of the 1986 Armed Forces Bill.
The Select Committee's report which was published yesterday contains a somewhat disingenuous statement.Paragraph 30 on page xiii of the report says:
We note that the Ministry of Defence has in every case modified the rules of service discipline as recommended. In two cases where the 1981 Committee recommended a review of the present practice—with regard to the statutory definition of 'the enemy' and to composition of courts martial—the Government carried out such a review but concluded that changes are not practicable or desirable. The Committee accept the validity of the government's arguments in these two cases, and consider that in general the recommendations of the 1981 Committee relating to service discipline have been implemented in a satisfactory manner.
I do not accept that slick statement, and it helps to explain why I voted against the report. There is a good case for the change that is proposed in new clause 1.

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) made an interesting speech on Second Reading. One of his points related to the constitution of courts martial, and I thought that it would be a very interesting and worthwhile point to pursue. I have made a number of inquiries since then. They confirm the view that I held previously: that it would not be a good idea to change the existing constitution of courts martial.
I say that for two reasons. It is appropriate for officers to sit as members of courts martial. They have had specific training in various matters, including law, which enables them to contribute properly to courts martial. This point is made on page 200 of the committee's report. Paragraph 5 of the 1985–86 report of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill the Ministry of Defence says:
commissioned officers …are selected and specifically prepared through a planned programme of courses and training throughout their Service, to fulfil the responsibilities of commissioned rank. A part of that career planning is progressive training in military law and responsibility for the administration of discipline from the outset of their commissioned Service.
So there is a plus point in having officers serve as members of courts-martial: they have been properly trained.
9.15 pm
Not only is there a plus point—I hope and believe that my feelings about this are as genuine as those of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who gives serious thought to these matters—there is also a minus point if non-commissioned officers are to be included as members of courts-martial. On page 201, our report says:
It was also felt that the Warrant Officer's position with functions in the disciplinary field concerned with prevention, investigation and reporting of offences should continue to remain separated from the judcial role, the responsibility of commissioned officers.
It goes on to say:
Firm views were expressed by senior non-commissioned officers, the category from which representation would be obtained, that membership of courts-martial should continue to be confined to commissioned officers who were ultimately responsible for the maintenance of discipline.

It is right that the maintenance of discipline should be the responsibility of officers who, let us remember, are separated in a number of carefully graded ways from the non-commissioned officers and other men in the armed forces. That careful separation of officers from men exists not just for some old-fashioned, out-dated social reason but because officers have a specific responsibility for discipline and other matters. There is a real benefit in having officers as members of courts-martial and a disadvantage in not having them. Because of this, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Bermingham: In 1946 Mr. Justice Lewis was looking at the world of 1946; in 1986 we are supposed to be looking at the world of 1986. I listened with care in Committee—it was one of the stages at which I was present, before the row developed between me and the Committee and I departed, not in high dudgeon but in despair because, once again, the arguments trotted out in Committee were arguments which were as old as time: we have officers and we have others. To a large extent, we have got rid of that kind of concept in the rest of our social structure. There was a time when it was the squire who was the magistrate and the labourer who was always the defendant. In 1986 it is the farm worker, whether he be a manager or a farm labourer, who very often sits by the squire on the magisterial bench. No Member of the House would deny that many of our courts are well manned by people who do ordinary jobs.
Of course, they are taught the law. We teach magistrates the law. Why can we not teach the senior noncommissioned officers in the armed services the appropriate amount of law? In any case, courts-martial have a judge advocate in attendance to advise. A court-martial is a court of fact. If we broaden the group of people who are to judge the facts, we may on occasion bring to its deliberations a degree of common sense. There is an old doctrine: it is called the doctrine of common sense. The ability to use it is found in the private as well as in the general.
In what is supposed to be an intelligent and increasingly better educated society, I cannot understand why we have to retain in our courts-martial system principles and prejudices more suited to the 17th and 18th centuries, when only members of the officer class were taught to read and write. All that we have sought to do in this Committee in 1986, and all that my hon. Friend has sought to do, is to bring to the court-martial a touch of the 20th century, a touch of trial by one's peers. One's peers are not just one's commanding officer but also one's compatriots, one's friends, fellow members of one's regiment or ship or squadron, people who understand the various aspects of day-to-day life. If we fail on this one in 1986, those of us who are still here in 1991 will have to come back to the same argument. I have done my arithmetic and that is when the legislation will come before us again.
We cannot stop the passage of time and the development of social awareness. The Government cannot retreat for ever, as the Ministry did so often when answering questions from myself and others in the Select Committee, behind the barricades of history by using the defence, "We have always done it this way." For the second time tonight I ask the Minister to accept that when my hon. Friends and I move amendments we are not trying


to upset the constitution or to pull down the pillars of the establishment. All we are trying to do is to move the Ministry into the 20th century before we get to the 21st.

Mr. Wallace: The Select Committee did not give sufficient attention to this important matter. Clearly the world of 1946 was very different from the world of 1986, as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has said. The days of the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate have gone out of the window.
I have given careful thought to the new clause. Various factors do not persuade me to support it. Not least of them is the amount of training which is part of an officer's career scheme. It is doubtful whether a panel of senior NCOs with the necessary training would be available to participate in a court-martial when required. Many of us were not entirely satisfied about the amount of consultation on some points. Sometimes we felt that if something was not mentioned it was assumed that everyone was happy with it. Since the passage of the previous legislation there has been a review with this specifically in mind. From the evidence presented to the Committee about the Army, it seemed to have gone into the matter in considerable detail. There was confidence in the system, and confidence in a judicial system is important.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) might have continued to read from the report and to give the view of some service men that there might be representation on a court martial by warrant officers. Although in some cases they might not be suitable because of their functions in regard to discipline, it was felt that they might have something to contribute because their understanding of a soldier's motivation or background experience might be different from that of a commissioned officer. There might be a good case for giving further consideration to whether those of the rank of warrant officer might be suitable to sit on a court martial. Because the new clause goes further than that, I cannot support it.

Mr. Stanley: Hon. Members have largely covered all the essential points of argument on both sides. I merely want to stress to the Committee that the Government took seriously the recommendation of the 1981 Select Committee. We were asked to consider the issue again. It is an issue about which my colleagues and I in the Department did not have any preconceived notions and which we approached with an open mind.
The study was carried out very carefully. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to the extensive work which was done by all three services and that is detailed in memorandum No. 18, which starts on page 200. Very careful consultation took place and in the light of that consultation and the advice that we received from the services we came to the conclusion that there was no basic case for departing from the initial conclusion that goes back to the Lewis report that the present system works thoroughly satisfactorily.
We are undoubtedly influenced by the fact that, having carried out an extensive consultation within the three services, in our view there is no doubt at all that there is no evidence of any material desire within the noncommissioned ranks of the armed forces for the composition of courts-martial to be altered.
I was most interested by the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). Clearly, he has made his own independent soundings in the constituency he represents, which has one of the highest concentrations of service men in the country, and the feedback to him was the same.
I believe that, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland quite rightly said, the crucial factor is whether the existing composition of courts-martial commands the confidence of service men of all ranks and at all levels. I think that without any question the answer to that is an emphatic yes. Given that we have a system at present which is working well and satisfactorily and that there is no material desire for a change, I believe that the Committee's conclusion that the present system should be kept was the right one, and I must ask the Committee to reject the new clause.

Mr. McNamara: I believe that in looking at this clause the Government, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) omitted to notice one important thing—that it contains an option. It is not mandatory. It would meet the point that was raised by some hon. Gentlemen that they would not want to have on their court-martial a regimental sergeant-major or senior warrant officers. It would also meet another very important point, that there should be felt to be within the court martial a degree of experience and understanding particularly of the position of the private soldier which the officer, for all his legal training and concern for his soldiers, sailors or airmen, might not have.
When the Lewis committee was looking at this back in 1946 the reason why it rejected the suggestion of having non-commissioned officers on the committee—and I am not now talking about Mr. Blackburn's amendment, a note of dissent which my hon. Friend mentioned—was that
today, when nearly all officers have to graduate from the ranks, the danger in question is a remote risk".
The danger in question was that officers would not have experience of the problems of the ordinary soldier and sailor.
But, if the majority of officers at that time did come through the ranks because of what was happening in the war, that is not the case on this occasion. When we sought information on this from the Ministry, we found that in the Royal Navy 22 per cent., in the Royal Marines 24 per cent., in the Army, male officers, 22 per cent. and in the RAF 21 per cent.—barely one fifth, certainly not a majority—of serving officers had come through the ranks. That is proved if one looks at the footnote to which the hon. Member for Gosport referred in the supplementary note from the Ministry of Defence.
I put it to the Committee that there is room for experimentation here. I accept that no great dissatisfaction has been expressed with the present system. But it seems to have been part of the Panglossian attitude of the Ministry of Defence throughout that if there have been no grumbles the situation is not capable of being improved. The Opposition do not believe that the court-martial system as it exists at present is necessarily the best possible system.
9.30 pm
If the defendant had the option of having someone there who had experienced his society and his type of life, it would help. It would not be impossible to ensure that the


necessary training was given to non-commissioned officers. No wonderful sleight of hand can make a regimental sergeant-major into a commissioned subaltern with sufficient experience to sit immediately on a court-martial.
Thus the argument does not stand up and the dependence on Lewis does not stand up, because the facts have changed. There is room to make this alteration. Accordingly, we shall seek to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 50, Noes 127.

Division No. 133]
[9.30 pm


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Lamond, James


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Loyden, Edward


Bermingham, Gerald
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Madden, Max


Caborn, Richard
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Maxton, John


Clarke, Thomas
Michie, William


Clay, Robert
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Nellist, David


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Park, George


Corbyn, Jeremy
Parry, Robert


Craigen, J. M.
Patchett, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter


Deakins, Eric
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dewar, Donald
Redmond, Martin


Dixon, Donald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Dormand, Jack
Skinner, Dennis


Eastham, Ken
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Wigley, Dafydd


Foster, Derek
Winnick, David


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Godman, Dr Norman



Gould, Bryan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hardy, Peter
Mr. Norman Hogg and


Haynes, Frank
Mr. John McWilliam.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Body, Sir Richard


Alton, David
Bottomley, Peter


Amess, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Ashby, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brinton, Tim


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Buck, Sir Antony


Batiste, Spencer
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carttiss, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Chapman, Sydney


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chope, Christopher





Conway, Derek
Marland, Paul


Coombs, Simon
Mather, Carol


Cope, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Couchman, James
Meadowcroft, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Merchant, Piers


Dicks, Terry
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Dunn, Robert
Newton, Tony


Eggar, Tim
Penhaligon, David


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Pollock, Alexander


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Powell, William (Corby)


Favell, Anthony
Powley, John


Forth, Eric
Raffan, Keith


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Freeman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion


Galley, Roy
Rowe, Andrew


Gregory, Conal
Ryder, Richard


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Sims, Roger


Ground, Patrick
Speed, Keith


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Spencer, Derek


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Stern, Michael


Harris, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hawksley, Warren
Sumberg, David


Henderson, Barry
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Hind, Kenneth
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Holt, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Howells, Geraint
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Tracey, Richard


Jessel, Toby
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Viggers, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Waddington, David


King, Rt Hon Tom
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Kirkwood, Archy
Walden, George


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Wallace, James


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Waller, Gary


Lang, Ian
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Watts, John


Lilley, Peter
Whitfield, John


Livsey, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wolfson, Mark


Lyell, Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


McCurley, Mrs Anna



MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Tellers for the Noes:


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Major, John
Mr. Tony Durant.


Malone, Gerald

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

SOCIAL INQUIRY REPORTS

'For any case brought before a court martial or a standing civilian court, the court shall have power to call for a social inquiry report to be made where it is considered that to do so would assist the court.'.—[Dr. Godman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Godman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
If every other court in the land on occasion seeks the advantageous use of social inquiry reports, why not courts martial?

Mr. Stanley: The proposition of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is straightforward, but I shall speak at greater length than he did.
The 1981 Select Committee accepted that current procedures already provided a great deal of relevent information about the character, background and circumstances of an accused person. However, the Committee suggested that full information of this type was particularly important in the case of young offenders and recommended the evolution of a system under which social inquiry reports on young offenders could be made more readily available. As a result of our consideration of this recommendation, I announced during the debate on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1985 that a system had been introduced which would allow social inquiry reports to be provided in cases where a young Army or RAF service man was appearing before a court martial charged with a serious offence. Social inquiry reports may also be provided in other cases if appropriate. They will also be provided in similar circumstances for young civilian offenders appearing before a standing civilian court or court martial. These reports will be prepared by qualified SSAFA social workers or, in Germany, by the senior probation officer. In the case of the Navy, social inquiry reports will continue to be provided by the naval personal and families service. This system of social inquiry reports has now been in place for nearly a year and appears to be working well.
In the new clause, the hon. Gentleman seeks to extend the provision of social inquiry reports to all courts martial and standing civilian courts. However, his draft clause is, I am afraid, seriously defective. It contains no definition of the term "social inquiry report" which is defined where it appears in other legislation. The draft clause does not lay a statutory duty on any particular body or person to produce social inquiry reports where these are called for and, without this, the amendment can have no legal effect.
More substantively we do not consider this amendment to be necessary. Even where a formal social inquiry report is not provided, full information on an offender's character, background and circumstances must already be given to the court as a matter of course under regulations governing the conduct of the various types of service courts. In the Army and RAF the information thus routinely provided has recently been improved and expanded in order to provide the fullest possible detail. No comparable improvement was necessary in the Navy since there are already facilities to provide full social inquiry reports on all offenders. This is possible because of the

much smaller number of courts martial in the Navy. I can assure the House that the duty to provide this information is taken very seriously. However, if the court is not satisfied with the information it has been given, it can order such extra information as it requires and adjourn while that is prepared.
9.45 pm
Taken together with the provision of formal social inquiry reports on all young offenders wherever practicable and also on other, older, offenders where deemed appropriate and where resources permit, I believe that the personal information already provided to service courts is perfectly sufficient. On that basis I ask the Committee to reject the amendment because I believe that it is superfluous in terms of the practice we are already following.

Mr. McNamara: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. We do not accept the point that he has made. We do not think that the clause is inappropriate. We think that more mandatory information should be given. If the clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is defective we should be happy if the Minister would accept the principle of it and allow it to go through to be amended in another place. I hope that we shall divide on the clause.

Mr. Dalyell: On the matter of older offenders, was there a social inquiry report and did the procedure work in the case of the airman of 9 Royal Signals Regiment who was tried as a result of the so-called Cyprus spy trial? This is not the time nor place to go into that, but some of us begin to wonder whether far more inquries ought to have been made before charges were initiated.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 58, Noes 121.

Division No. 134]
[9.46pm


AYES


Alton, David
Livsey, Richard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Loyden, Edward


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
McCartney, Hugh


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
McNamara, Kevin


Bermingham, Gerald
Madden, Max


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Caborn, Richard
Maxton, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Michie, William


Clay, Robert
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Nellist, David


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Park, George


Corbyn, Jeremy
Parry, Robert


Craigen, J. M.
Patchett, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Penhaligon, David


Deakins, Eric
Pike, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dixon, Donald
Redmond, Martin


Dormand, Jack
Richardson, Ms Jo


Eastham, Ken
Skinner, Dennis


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Wallace, James


Foster, Derek
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Wigley, Dafydd


Godman, Dr Norman
Winnick, David


Hardy, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Haynes, Frank



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Norman Hogg and


Lamond, James
Mr. John McWilliam.






NOES


Alexander, Richard
King, Rt Hon Tom


Amess, David
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Ashby, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Lang, Ian


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Lilley, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bellingham, Henry
Lyell, Nicholas


Bevan, David Gilroy
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Blackburn, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Body, Sir Richard
Major, John


Bottomley, Peter
Malone, Gerald


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Marland, Paul


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Mather, Carol


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Maude, Hon Francis


Brinton, Tim
Merchant, Piers


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Buck, Sir Antony
Newton, Tony


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Pollock, Alexander


Carttiss, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Chapman, Sydney
Powley, John


Chope, Christopher
Raffan, Keith


Conway, Derek
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Coombs, Simon
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Cope, John
Roe, Mrs Marion


Couchman, James
Rowe, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Ryder, Richard


Dicks, Terry
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Dunn, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Durant, Tony
Sims, Roger


Eggar, Tim
Speed, Keith


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Spencer, Derek


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor


Favell, Anthony
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
Stern, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Freeman, Roger
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Galley, Roy
Sumberg, David


Gregory, Conal
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ground, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Tracey, Richard


Harris, David
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Haselhurst, Alan
Viggers, Peter


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Waddington, David


Hawksley, Warren
Walden, George


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Waller, Gary


Henderson, Barry
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Hind, Kenneth
Watts, John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Whitfield, John


Holt, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Wolfson, Mark


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Wood, Timothy


Hubbard-Miles, Peter



Hunter, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Jessel, Toby
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mr. Archie Hamilton.


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

`(1) In section 43 of the Naval Discipline Act 1967 the words "(a) death" shall be removed.
(2) In section 71 of the Army Act 1955 the words "(a) death" shall be removed.
(3) In section 71 of the Air Force Act 1955 the words "(a) death" shall be removed.
(4) All consequential references in the above Acts to the application of death sentences shall cease to have effect.'.—
[Mr. Bermingham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bermingham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It seems almost anachronistic that in this day and age a serving soldier in the United Kingdom in peace time who is taking part in an exercise which may well lead to the restraint, of strikers, for example, could find himself on a charge which led to the imposition of the death penalty. In the United Kingdom today, if a soldier changes sides in a combat, we can hang him.
We have debated time and time again the whole question of capital punishment. During the Committee stage of the Bill—I refer to paragraphs 412 to 464 of the report — I make no apologies for the fact that throughout the bulk of that period the questions were asked by myself.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's sitting, the Armed Forces Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 49.

Division No. 135]
[10.01 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hawksley, Warren


Amess, David
Henderson, Barry


Arnold, Tom
Hind, Kenneth


Ashby, David
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Holt, Richard


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Batiste, Spencer
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bellingham, Henry
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Blackburn, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Body, Sir Richard
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Brinton, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Buck, Sir Antony
Lang, Ian


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Lilley, Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Lyell, Nicholas


Cash, William
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Chapman, Sydney
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Chope, Christopher
Major, John


Conway, Derek
Malone, Gerald


Coombs, Simon
Marland, Paul


Cope, John
Mather, Carol


Couchman, James
Maude, Hon Francis


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Merchant, Piers


Dicks, Terry
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Dunn, Robert
Newton, Tony


Durant, Tony
Pollock, Alexander


Eggar, Tim
Powell, William (Corby)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Powley, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Raffan, Keith


Favell, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Forth, Eric
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Freeman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Galley, Roy
Ryder, Richard


Gregory, Conal
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Ground, Patrick
Sims, Roger


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Speed, Keith


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Spencer, Derek


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Harris, David
Stern, Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)






Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Walden, George


Sumberg, David
Watts, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Whitfield, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wood, Timothy


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Waddington, David





NOES


Alton, David
Lamond, James


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Livsey, Richard


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Loyden, Edward


Bermingham, Gerald
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Madden, Max


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Maxton, John


Clay, Robert
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Michie, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
Nellist, David


Dalyell, Tam
Parry, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Patchett, Terry


Deakins, Eric
Penhaligon, David


Dewar, Donald
Pike, Peter


Dixon, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dormand, Jack
Redmond, Martin


Eastham, Ken
Skinner, Dennis


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Wallace, James


Foster, Derek
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Wigley, Dafydd


Godman, Dr Norman
Winnick, David


Hardy, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Haynes, Frank



Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Tellers for the Noes:


Howells, Geraint
Mr. Chris Smith and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. John McWilliam.


Kirkwood, Archy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Select Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Bermingham: As I was saying, before the commercial break that we have just had, the purpose behind the probing questions that lay between paragraphs 412 and 464 was to ascertain the real position. At the risk of repeating what is to be found in the report, after a series of questions to various Members of the Ministry of Defence from myself and various other hon. Members, we eventually reached a point where Mr. Facer was answering the questions.
It appears that there are five offences under the various Army Acts which can be summed up as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. We began by seeking to probe what was meant by "the enemy". But it appears that we have no definition of that. The enemy appears to be anybody who opposes a soldier. That means that he can be a civilian. It took us a little probing finally to establish that.
We reached the point where we found that if a soldier is opposed and gives aid to the enemy, it did not really matter whether we were in peace time or at war because it then turned out that "being at war" meant anything. We have not had an official war since 1945, but we have had many disagreements. In Northern Ireland at present we have an enemy. Apparently, we have had an enemy in various other parts of the world. We can even have an enemy in the United Kingdom. But we do not have to be at war.
We began to prove the next aspect of this little matter. We found out that if a soldier is opposed he therefore has an enemy and if he gives aid and comfort to that enemy he may be guilty of one of the five offences. If he is, the court can then sentence him to death.
We then reached the rather interesting point in the discussion as to how we could sum all that up. I asked Mr. Facer question 464:
But it is possible at this moment in time, even though we are in a peacetime situation, for a British serviceman to be sentenced to death for one of these five offences if the offence occurs either in the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, Belize, Gibraltar—anywhere where there is a British serviceman currently stationed, and he is liable for one of these five offences, if the court sees fit, to be sentenced to death?
Mr. Facer, for the Ministry of Defence, replied, "That is so".
It would appear that a court martial can sentence any British serving soldier to death anywhere in the world for one of those five offences.
10.15 pm
We were then told in Committee that that would not happen. We asked why and were told that it was not the policy to execute anybody. Soldiers could be sentenced to death, but it was not the policy to execute them. The question naturally then came from me and from others: if it is not the policy now, who makes the policy? We established that it was the Government of the day. Therefore, if the Government changed their mind the sentence of death could be imposed in peacetime on a British serving soldier.
We then asked why and whether that had been done since 1945 and were told no. We then asked how it was known that it was a deterrent — what evidence was there. The reply was that since 1945 we have been able to do it, but we have never done it and it is not our policy to do it, so it must be a deterrent. We suggested turning the question the other way round. If, since 1945, it had been the policy not to do it and it had not been done, was there any evidence that it was a deterrent? We were told no, and the person who said no we never saw in the Committee again, I think because he gave us the wrong answer and let the cat out of the bag.
The truth is that the Ministry has no evidence to support the contention that the Army, which is full of volunteers, should be subject to a different form of legislation, punishment and control from anybody else. There is no justification for the position and there is no evidence to support the position—there is nothing. But, because we have been executing soldiers since they first marched across the face of the world, we have to carry on having this, and the Army has to have its death penalty for these five matters. It must be able in peacetime to string up by the neck until he is dead a soldier who, when he is asked to oppose a civilian group of people, and actually agrees with them and goes and joins them, is committing an offence which is punishable by hanging. That is an appalling situation.
Parliament has said time after time since the 1960s in respect of terrorism and many other matters that it will not hang men or women, yet the Armed Forces Bill retains the right — without evidence to support that retention, without justification, without any reason that we could ascertain in the Committee—and wishes to continue to retain the right, to hang. I ask the Minister why.
When we reached the stage in Committee at which amendments were tabled—and I drafted the amendment


on this Section—I did not attend the meeting for the reasons that I have already given earlier tonight. We were so muddled in that Committee that I had walked out and made my position perfectly clear over the vote on the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) who wanted to give evidence to the Committee that it would not hear. When this was moved, we were defeated on straight party lines and the hon. Member was muzzled. I walked out at that stage. I stood by my decision not to take any further part in the proceedings and I did not attend the amendment sessions. Each of the amendments to the report falls according to straight party lines.
I said earlier that Select Committees are meant to be about the exchange of ideas. I felt that it was pointless to continue to attend meetings of the Committee. Therefore, I am bringing the arguments that I would have used in the Select Committee on to the Floor of the House. I make no apologies for taking time over it. It is an issue of principle and of conscience. Why should a soldier who volunteers to risk his life in the service of his country face any different form of justice and punishment from that which is faced by evey other citizen of this land? It is not right. If this House believes that it is a barbaric and ancient punishment that is best consigned to the history books, why should it be retained on the statute book for service personnel, even though the Ministry of Defence says that it is not its policy to use it?
Every five years we have the opportunity to try to bring the armed forces into line with the rest of the nation. In about 25 minutes from now, I suspect that, along party lines, we shall lose this new clause. If we lose it, it will be a tragedy. We shall have to wait another five years before we are able once again to seek to remove it from the statute book, just one more trace of our ancient past which does not do us much credit—the execution of human beings.
I accept that many hon. Members will disagree with me on equally strong points of conscience. I understand and respect their point of view. However, I ask the Committee to accept that this clause is moved very much in line with the thinking of many hon. Members who believe that the death penalty serves nobody well and ought not to remain in the Acts which govern the armed forces.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) did not attend the meetings of the Select Committee to put forward his arguments. He has chosen instead to state them in this Chamber. Therefore, I intend to set out the arguments that would have been put to him by Conservative Members who serve on the Select Committee had he been there to listen to them.
It is important to note that this is hardly a hangover from our barbaric past. Only very specific offences attract the death penalty. They are the result of consideration in this House in 1981 when the then Armed Forces Bill was brought before the House and passed.
Two entirely different situations arise which must be stressed. If civilian types of offence are committed not during the course of hostilities, the civilan law applies to them If a soldier who is not on military duty or engaged in hostilities murders a comrade, he is subject to the normal law of this country and the death penalty does not arise. That does not apply to some of the other armed forces of the world, particularly in the United States. The

death penalty applies there in peacetime for offences of murder, felony and rape and particularly, in the case of the Navy, for the offence of endangering a ship.
The situation in this country at present is that only those offences connected with hostilities attract the death penalty. It is eminently sensible that they should and there are very strong policy reasons for their doing so. They are:
Misconduct in action (ie with intent to assist the enemy) … assisting the enemy (ie with intent to assist the enemy, communicating with or giving intelligence to the enemy or failing to make known to the proper authorities any information received from the enemy) … obstructing operations (ie with intent to assist the enemy) … mutiny (ie taking part in a mutiny having as its object the refusal or avoidance or any duty etc against or in connection with operations against the enemy) … and failure to suppress mutiny (ie with intent to assist the enemy, failing to use utmost endeavours to suppress or prevent a mutiny" …
All these relate to hostilities. When hostilities occur, each member of the armed forces is responsible for assisting in the preservation of the lives of his colleagues. Failure to carry out his duty, for example, by mutiny, will seriously affect his colleagues and, no doubt, bring about the death of large numbers of them in groupings such as battalions or divisions. So it is essential to maintain discipline in order to save life.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Hind: No, not the hon. Member. He has just come in.

Mr. Corbyn: I have been sitting here all the time.

Mr. Hind: The hon. Member for St. Helens, South made a point about hostilities and when they arise. When the Falklands war took place, that was not technically hostilities. There was no official declaration of war. Suppose that the soldiers who landed from the Sir Galahad had gone to their death as a result of information passed to the enemy by a serving soldier. We would have been failing in our duty if that had not been dealt with on the basis of the death penalty. Even though there had been no formal declaration of hostilities, they clearly existed.
These offences cover soldiers, airmen and naval personnel under fire from an enemy which is attempting to destroy British forces. These sections are important in strengthening discipline for men under fire. They are special. These categories do not apply to the kind of offence normally dealt with by the civilian code. They are there to protect not only the interests of our country but also the lives of serving personnel.
I can do no better than quote the answer in Select Committee of Lieutenant-General Sir John Chapple who, in answer to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South, described the offences which attract the death penalty. He said:
They do require a positive act of treachery, or armed mutiny in one case, which could have a significant effect on our military effort and ultimately, therefore, on our national security and survival. For that reason all these five offences, which carry with them either the words 'with intent to assist the enemy' or 'with the object of avoiding duty against or impending operations against the enemy' are considered by the Ministry of Defence to warrant remaining in being.
That is a view that I endorse.
It must be borne in mind that the death penalty for these offences is not mandatory. It is subject to the discretion, first of all, of the court-martial. It is subject to the review procedure, the approving officer, and then, in the case of the Army, of the Army Board. There are provisions for


appeal to the courts-martial appeals committee. It would have been better if the hon. Member for St. Helens, South had tried to strengthen the provisions for safeguards by suggesting that the courts-martial appeals committee be given the right to consider a sentence, which at the moment it has not got, rather than introducing this new clause which would remove a matter of fundamental policy which is necessary during hostilities.
10.30 pm
The armed services have made clear their policy. The provisions have not operated during peacetime for these offences because that is the policy of the Ministry of Defence, but they have to be there. Because of situations like the Falklands, we cannot change the provisions and say that there must have been a declaration of war.
In those circumstances, I urge all my colleagues to reject the argument that has been put forward and to vote against the new clause.

Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has rightly said, the first and fundamental point is that the death penalty can be applied only where the offence is committed with the deliberate intention of assisting the enemy or, where mutiny is concerned, there is a deliberate attempt to avoid or impede operations against the enemy. Where the deliberate intention of assisting the enemy or avoiding or impeding operations against the enemy is present, there are now only five offences, to which hon. Members have referred, in the service Discipline Acts which would carry the death penalty. Those are misconduct in action, assisting the enemy, obstructing operations, mutiny and failure to suppress mutiny.
The 1981 Select Committee considered those five offences in considerable detail. It accepted that the death penalty should be retained as an ultimate and, of course, discretionary—not mandatory—punishment where there was a deliberate intention to assist the enemy. The 1981 Select Committee asked us to reconsider the definition of the enemy used in the legislation. The Department did that in great detail but, as I explained on Second Reading of the Bill, we came to the conclusion that all the alternative definitions are less satisfactory than the present definition and would be likely to widen rather than reduce the ambit of the death penalty.
In the Department we also considered carefully whether the death penalty should be retained for each of the five offences, and we concluded that it should. The 1986 Select Committee has also examined the issue, taking both oral and written evidence. It has concluded that no change should be made—rightly, in my view.
It must be stressed that the only circumstances in which the death penalty could be applied to service men would be for offences tantamount to the civilian criminal offence of treason where, unlike under service law, the death penalty is still mandatory. Treasonable activity within the ranks of the armed services in war would undoubtedly be a crime of the utmost seriousness. If committed, it would almost certainly lead directly to the loss of the lives of other service men performing their operational duties bravely and trusting in the loyalty of those serving with them.
The armed services were unanimous and clear in their advice to Ministers that it was right to retain the death

penalty for offences tantamount to treason, and the Government accepted that advice. If the Opposition wish to press the new clause to a Division, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. McNamara: The Opposition regret very much the advice which the right hon. Gentleman has given to his colleagues, because we feel that this is a matter of principle, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said. We feel that there are circumstances and cases, particularly now, in view of the nature of our armed forces at the present time —that they are purely volunteers, that they are unlikely to be people who will go into it against their own wishes—which place them in difficulties. If they crack, it will not be because they are going to commit treason. They will crack because their own individual psyches are being put under enormous stress.
The Minister said that these were offences akin to treason. I think that the Judge Advocate-General said before the Committee that these were offences akin to treachery. If that is so and this is a civilian crime, so be it. Then members of the armed forces, who are, after all, only civilians in uniform, will be subject to that legislation. But in terms of the profession they follow, which is an honourable one, to maintain the security of our nation, these are volunteers, and it is an insult to them that the Government think it necessary to have these provisions in the Army discipline code at the present time.
One thing that worries us in particular is again the Panglossian attitude of the Ministry of Defence to these matters. When we asked the Ministry why it was that in other NATO countries it was not felt necessary to have the death penalty, we got a special supplementary memorandum from the Department on it. Roughly half maintain it, but half do not, and significant among the half that do not are precisely those countries which, like us, have had a lot of conflict, particularly as they have divested themselves of, or in some cases have sought to retain, empire and therefore have been engaged in armed conflict since the war. Countries such as France and Portugal, in particular, which have had tremendous colonial wars, have abolished the death penalty. I cite those two because they are similar in nature and in status to our country.
It was in reply to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) that the game was given away. He asked whether the maintenance of the death penalty prevented subversion, whether it really operated as a deterrent—question 409:
Surely, if one is recruiting people as volunteers it does not stop one from recruiting people from subversive powers, and if such people are recruited surely there is no proof they are discouraged from being recruited because there is a death penalty?
(Mr. Facer.) It is extremely difficult to prove these things, and evidence of deterrence even in other areas tends to be inconclusive.
That is pretty good from an Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence when they are spending all this money on Trident; but be that as it may, he went on:
I think it would be fair to say we take the view that the existence of the death penalty for these particular offences provides an extra dimension to deterrence which may prevent an act of this kind, which we all hope would never occur anyway; it may make it even less likely than it is. I think that is about all I can say on the subject of deterrence.
That, roughly, is all the Committee heard from the Department. They had no evidence. They had not looked


at other countries and asked why they had taken it away or why had they retained it. They just sat there, smug and content. It had been around a long time and they thought they ought to retain it.
When I was listening to the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who spoke in support of retaining the death penalty, I did not feel that we were getting any argument which showed the effectiveness of retaining the death penalty as a deterrent. I thought that he was speaking only in terms of retribution. Retribution may be an argument for maintaining the death penalty, but it is not one that I would accept and it was never advanced by the Ministry of Defence when it was putting forward its case. Its argument was purely and simply on the basis of deterrence.

Mr. Hind: Perhaps the hon. Member would consider that, far from the death penalty being retribution, its deterrence factor in this situation is related to the need to stand by one's colleagues. If there is an option for a person to run away and save his own life in the face of knowing he will lose the lives of many of his colleagues, in such cases it is important to have the death penalty as the deterrent. That is the key to the matter. Retribution is not the essential element: the essence is deterrence.

Mr. McNamara: We no longer have a conscript Army; we have an Army and services of honourable, people who are not likely to crack in that way. If they do crack, it will not be because of cowardice but because of something wrong in their psyche.
It is possible under the existing legislation for a soldier to commit an offence and for it to carry the death penalty. It cannot be a good thing that other people, who are not members of the armed services, can commit the same offence and not be subject to the death penalty.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 38, Noes 113.

Division No. 136]
[10.40 pm


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Loyden, Edward


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
McNamara, Kevin


Bermingham, Gerald
Madden, Max


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Maxton, John


Clay, Robert
Michie, William


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Nellist, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Parry, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Patchett, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Pike, Peter


Dixon, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Eastham, Ken
Redmond, Martin


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Wigley, Dafydd


Godman, Dr Norman
Winnick, David


Hardy, Peter



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Mr. John McWilliam and


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Chris Smith.


Lamond, James





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Blackburn, John


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Batiste, Spencer
Brinton, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Brooke, Hon Peter





Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Major, John


Carttiss, Michael
Malone, Gerald


Cash, William
Marland, Paul


Chapman, Sydney
Mather, Carol


Chope, Christopher
Maude, Hon Francis


Conway, Derek
Merchant, Piers


Coombs, Simon
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Cope, John
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Couchman, James
Neubert, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Dunn, Robert
Pollock, Alexander


Durant, Tony
Powell, William (Corby)


Eggar, Tim
Powley, John


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Raffan, Keith


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Favell, Anthony
Roe, Mrs Marion


Forth, Eric
Rowe, Andrew


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Ryder, Richard


Freeman, Roger
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Galley, Roy
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Gregory, Conal
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Speed, Keith


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Spencer, Derek


Ground, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Stern, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Harris, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Haselhurst, Alan
Sumberg, David


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hawksley, Warren
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Henderson, Barry
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Hind, Kenneth
Thurnham, Peter


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Tracey, Richard


Holt, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Viggers, Peter


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Waddington, David


Howells, Geraint
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Walden, George


Hunter, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Jackson, Robert
Watts, John


Jessel, Toby
Whitfield, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Wilkinson, John


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Wolfson, Mark


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Wood, Timothy


Lang, Ian



Lilley, Peter
Tellers for the Noes


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Mr. Peter Lloyd.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

QUALIFICATION TO OFFENCE OF INDECENT BEHAVIOUR

`(1) In section 66 of the Army Act 1955 at the end there shall be added the words—"provided that for an action to constitute an offence of disgraceful conduct of an indecent or unnatural kind it must be one which is prejudicial to good conduct and discipline.".
(2) In section 66 of the Air Force Act 1955 at the end there shall be added the words "provided that, for an action to constitute an offence of disgraceful conduct of an indecent or unnatural kind, it must also be one which is prejudicial to good conduct and discipline".
(3) In section 37 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, at the end there shall be added the words—"provided that, for an action to constitute an offence of disgraceful conduct of an indecent or unnatural kind, it must also be one which is prejudicial to good conduct and discipline".,—[Mr. McNamara.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In our dealings with the armed forces we have always suggested that they are civilians in uniform. The separate


army code of discipline is regrettably necessary because of the nature of the calling. Generally, we have sought to say that a soldier is no more than a civilian in uniform. Therefore, he should have the same rights, the same way of life, and the same right to organise his life as any other citizen. That is not the case with homosexual conduct.
I was the only person on the Committee who had been present and taken part in the debates in 1967 on the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Tornaen (Mr. Abse), then the hon. Member for Pontypool, which sought, and eventually achieved its aim, of no longer making homosexual conduct in private between consenting males of adult age a criminal offence. That is the way we feel it should be in the armed services. That does not mean that we condone the act or that we necessarily approve of it. It merely means that we should no longer regard it as a criminal offence in the armed forces. It is sufficient, in the terms of the amendment we have tabled, that it should be treated as heterosexual conduct would be. If it is
prejudicial to good order and discipline." it should be an offence, but for no other reason.
The Ministry of Defence's evidence on this matter is a mess of contradictions and prejudice. There is no scientific or sociological research to back up the ways it has looked at the matter. It did not even know some of the witnesses, even the senior witness. It did not know that AIDS is a communicable disease or that there were differences in the evidence given by witnesses. The Ministry's idea was based on a social perception for which no evidence could be produced. The Ministry claimed that it was a perception held in society but it was certainly not one held in Britain in the past 30 years.
The Ministry advanced a series of arguments in favour of regarding the homosexual act as an offence in military terms. That evidence was challenged by the Campaign for Homosexual Equality and by evidence from the Conservative Group for Homosexual Equality, which numbers among its patrons the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris), the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and Mr. Martin Stevens, the late hon. Member for Fulham.
The main argument advanced is that the law on homosexuality endangers national security because it renders soldiers embarking upon that course of conduct liable to blackmail. They are liable to blackmail only because it is a criminal offence. If it was not a criminal offence we would not have had the Cyprus inquiry. We would have avoided the great loss of money and the show trial at the Old Bailey under section 1 of the Offical Secrets Act. We could have saved the country a great deal of money and prevented a lot of egg from going on the face of the Ministry.
There is no reason why homosexuality should be a danger to national security other than the fact that it is an offence under the Armed Forces Act. If it is prejudicial to good conduct and discipline, it should be treated in that way. Every example cited by the Ministry's witnesses was an example that could have been dealt with under conduct prejudicial to discipline.
The Conservative group argues that the present law can adversely affect recruitment and the retention of good personnel. It argues that the application of the law has been marred by abuse and unnecessary suffering and is

haphazard in its application. It is relevant to note that our NATO allies do not feel it is necessary to have such legislation.
For those reasons, we argue that homosexual conduct —not something of which I approve—should not be a criminal offence under Army law. It must be treated in the same way as heterosexual behaviour. When such behaviour is prejudicial to good conduct and discipline it should be dealt with. Otherwise, it should be ignored.
The Royal Air Force in its evidence came close to admitting that if homosexual conduct occurred off the station between two consenting males it was not especially bothered. It was bothered only when it was prejudicial to discipline. I do not think that the Government have made any case except one derived from a tangle of prejudices, outmoded thought and a desire to inflict upon the armed services a morality that the rest of society no longer accepts. I do not believe that we should treat our soldiers, sailors and airmen in that way.

Mr. Stanley: I shall start by repudiating the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) regarding the Government's approach. He appears to believe that it is based on prejudice and mistaken, anachronistic, social views, but that is not so. We have considered the issue seriously in the context of this quinquennial review, and it is our clear view that we must maintain the best possible discipline and operational efficiency in the armed services. It is against that yardstick, and not against any outmoded prejudice or anachronistic social view, that we have approached the problem.

11 pm

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Minister then tell the House what it is in a gay relationship between two males which would endanger the good discipline in the services?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to reply to the opening speech, I shall be glad to try to do so.
The aim of the new clause is to make homosexual practices on the part of members of the armed forces an offence against service discipline only where it can be construed as being prejudicial to good conduct and discipline.
The Committee will be aware that all homosexual practices involving service personnel continue to be offences under the Service Discipline Acts, regardless of the sex, age or willing consent of those involved. That position is specifically preserved by section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which otherwise permitted sexual acts between consenting adult males in private. The Committee will want to register that that legislation is just under 20 years old, and was the subject of a specific reservation at that time.
The exemption of the armed forces was in recognition of the unique circumstances of service life. Membership of the armed forces involves service men and service women serving in conditions where, both on and off duty, they are unavoidably living in close proximity and sometimes under stress. In addition, service life, particularly in demanding operational circumstances, requires absolute trust and confidence between all service men based on disciplined and professional relationships. Both the services and the Government are clear that the


more permissive approach to homosexuality proposed in the amendment would not be in the interests of the good discipline or the professional efficiency of the services as a whole.
The issue was fully considered by the Select Committee which received evidence, not merely from the Ministry of Defence, but from bodies in favour of allowing a more permissive approach to homosexuality in the armed forces. The Select Committee took great care to consider both sides of the issue, and concluded in paragraph 25 of its report that it would not be wise to change the existing law. That is also the Government's view. That is a clear view put to us, not only by the top ranks in the services, but down through every level. There is complete endorsement of the existing legislation expressed in all three services from top to bottom.
We are clear that if we try to change the law as proposed, it would be prejudicial to the proper professionalism and fighting and managerial efficiency of the armed services. Therefore, if the Opposition wish to press the matter, I ask the Committee to reject the new clause.

Mr. McNamara: Usually I would not seek to reply, but the Committee should be aware of some of the statements made by the Minister which I do not accept. During an evidence session the Chairman asked:
On that point, do you have any indication of the level of promiscuity in homosexual relationships? Do you have any figures available?
(Mr. Facer)No.
Mr. McNamara: That is something based on evidence; it is your general perception and feeling — common gossip —without any scientific support?
(Mr. Facer) It is based on general perceptions of society, not a judgment we take inside the Ministry of Defence.
That was the line on which the argument was based. In answer to the question
Why should they be treated as military offences?
Brigadier Peck replied:
Because the military view is that homosexuality goes against the requirements of the Services.
I asked
Why? Do not shrug your hands; I want to know why.
Then the admiral came on the scene to rescue the Army.
There is no evidence for the Minister's statements. Many of our NATO allies, who have a fighting reputation as great as ours, do not treat homosexuality as a criminal offence. The Government have not examined the evidence. There has been no sociological report. The Government's whole attitude is based on outworn prejudices such as we have come to expect from them. We shall divide the House on the issue.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 34, Noes 104.

Division No. 137]
[11.05 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Howells, Geraint


Bermingham, Gerald
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Livsey, Richard


Clay, Robert
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Loyden, Edward


Corbyn, Jeremy
McNamara, Kevin


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Maxton, John


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Michie, William


Godman, Dr Norman
Nellist, David


Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert


Haynes, Frank
Patchett, Terry





Penhaligon, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Pike, Peter



Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Redmond, Martin
Mr. Chris Smith and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. John McWilliam.


Wallace, James





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Amess, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Ashby, David
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Lang, Ian


Batiste, Spencer
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bellingham, Henry
Lilley, Peter


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Blackburn, John
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Bottomley, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Major, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Mather, Carol


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Maude, Hon Francis


Brinton, Tim
Merchant, Piers


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Buck, Sir Antony
Pollock, Alexander


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Carttiss, Michael
Powley, John


Cash, William
Raffan, Keith


Chope, Christopher
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Conway, Derek
Roe, Mrs Marion


Coombs, Simon
Rowe, Andrew


Cope, John
Ryder, Richard


Couchman, James
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Dunn, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Durant, Tony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Eggar, Tim
Speed, Keith


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Spencer, Derek


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor


Favell, Anthony
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
Stern, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Galley, Roy
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sumberg, David


Gregory, Conal
Temple-Morris, Peter


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Ground, Patrick
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Thurnham, Peter


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Tracey, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Viggers, Peter


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Waddington, David


Harris, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hawksley, Warren
Walden, George


Henderson, Barry
Waller, Gary


Hind, Kenneth
Watts, John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Whitfield, John


Holt, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Wolfson, Mark


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Wood, Timothy


Hubbard-Miles, Peter



Hunter, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Jackson, Robert
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Jessel, Toby
Mr. Gerald Malone.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

DISCRIMINATION

'For the purposes of the Aimed Forces Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, it shall be an offence for any person subject to those Acts to discriminate against, harass, hold in contempt or ridicule any person or persons on the grounds of religion, race, colour or political belief.'.—[Mr. McNamara.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. NcNamara: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is an unusual clause because it is based upon no conclusions or even argument within the Committee. Yet the Committee had before it a 31-paragraph statement from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), with eight appendices, which the Ministry of defence sought to rebut in a supplementary memorandum of 16 paragraphs. The Select Committee, in its wisdom, reached a majority decision to print both sets of evidence cheek by jowl, and then never came to any conclusion about them.
Yet if the evidence of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is correct, the Ministry of Defence's statement is nonsense. If the Ministry of Defence's statement is correct, the evidence of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is nonsense. With the wisdom that only this Select Committee could have, it decided not to reach any conclusion, not to examine the Ministry of Defence and not to examine the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. That is regrettable.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh wrote to the Select Committee and asked to give evidence. He was told that the Select Committee would consider that when he submitted his evidence. He did so and was told to hold himself ready to come forward to give oral evidence, but he was not called. One would normally say, "Hard lines," but in this case there were pressing reasons why the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh should have been permitted by the Select Committee to come forward, and I should have thought that those reasons would have commended themselves to democrats.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, in a difficult by-election, fought against two principal opponents. One, from Provisional Sinn Fein, was fought on an abstentionist platform. The other, from the Official Unionist party, was fought on a partial abstentionist platform; in other words, he would come in, sign up, get his money and go away. The Official Unionist candidate was defeated.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh desires as his ultimate objective to see the six counties of Northern Ireland part of a united Ireland. He seeks to achieve that not by the bullet or the bomb, but by arguing his case and by working constructively for it. He fought against opponents who had shown by their conduct how much they disparaged Parliament—Provisional Sinn Fein and the Official Unionists.
It was essential for this House to show its belief in the democratic method — its desire to give official democratic opportunities to people who advanced their point of view — and to show that Parliament had a forum, a great and unique Assembly, in which to discuss just those matters. I refer to the Select Committee that was discussing this Bill.
We are told that Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office told the majority on that Committee, "Do not call Seamus Mallon." [Interruption.] That statement has been made and has not be rebutted.

Mr. Stanley: I am happy to rebut it.

Mr. McNamara: On behalf of the Northern Ireland Office?

Mr. Stanley: I am happy to rebut it as a member of the Select Committee.

Mr. Viggers: I rebut it as another member of the Select Committee.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister and his hon. Friend should talk to some of their hon. Friends to discover why one of them told one of my hon. Friends that what I have described occurred. My hon. Friend in question was also a member of the Select Committee, and I value his opinion.
The evidence on both sides was contradictory. The Government said — and to show that I am not discriminating, I agree that the clause would apply to all regiments and all services—that they
reject any suggestion that either the discipline or training of the UDR is unsatisfactory.
Yet it was only at the turn of the year that the Government felt it necessary to make fresh arrangements for training the UDR. They then said:
Training must lay special emphasis on the skills required by soldiers who act in support of the civil power and who, therefore, come into daily contact with members of the public.
That is why we say:
it shall be an offence for any person subject to these Acts to discriminate against, harass, hold in contempt or ridicule any person or persons on the grounds of religion, race, colour or political belief.
The members of this regiment have power to search and question members of the public. The Government say that there is a good complaints procedure and they sent the Opposition a copy of it. The amendment then says:
It is suggested that the procedure discourages members of the minority community from making complaints, but there is no reason why this should be the case.
I quote from a letter that was sent to the Select Committee from the parish priest of Bessbrook, Newry, County Down. He said:
In my recent parish of Carrickmore, County Tyrone, I had reason to make representations on behalf of two of my parishioners at their request when they claimed they were ill treated by men from the UDR. I am enclosing copies of those statements and their accompanying letters and I would appreciate it if your committee would consider the allegations with a view to concrete steps. I believe that many who allege ill treatment at the hands of the UDR never make a formal complaint because I think they feel that it would be futile. Today I have spoken with the people connected with my enclosed complaints and there appears to be no follow up to the complaints. It all seems to have petered out or to have been shelved. They are interested in pursuing their complaints. Others, I feel, are afraid to complain.
The Committee had no opportunity to find out whether those complaints had been pursued because it was not allowed to take the evidence.
In its statement the Ministry of Defence says:
If a member of the public is reluctant for any reason to make a complaint of this sort directly to a UDR unit, it may be addressed either to a higher army headquarters or through local civil representatives.
However, I received a letter at the beginning of this month which says:
On Tuesday the 25th March I gave a detailed account to the civil representative who takes complaints regarding the British army and I gave him a copy of the enclosed. Every day of Holy Week the UDR, the British army and on one occasion the RUC did not cease to stand guard over St. Mallachy's church, question and search people coming in and out of the different Holy Week ceremonies and search cars around the church.
The conclusion of this particular parish priest was this:
This would seem to have been a deliberate action on the part of the local military authorities following my statement.
There is dissatisfaction among the minority community in Northern Ireland about present procedures. It does not


trust them. It does not believe that they are followed through. This is bad for the Ministry of Defence, the armed forces and the UDR.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is not the hon. Gentleman making a very discriminatory speech? Is he not aware that at least 10 per cent. of the UDR is drawn from the minority community in Northern Ireland? Is he not further aware that the UDR was set up with the specific purpose of recruiting as many people as possible from the minority community who wanted to play a part in upholding law and order in their Province in order to keep the community as a whole at peace and enable it to enjoy the same pleasures as we enjoy on this side of the Irish sea?

Mr. McNamara: According to the figures that were given to the Committee by the Ministry of Defence, those quoted by the hon. Gentleman are inaccurate. I remember the circumstances, because I took part in the debates. The UDR was introduced, following Lord Hunt's report, to replace the role of the former B Specials. It was hoped that the UDR would be seen as part of the British Army, as under the discipline of the British Army and as controlled by the British Army, and that it would therefore be regarded as an impartial enforcer of the law in that part of the United Kingdom which is called the six counties of Northern Ireland. Unfortunately—

Mr. Hind: rose—

Mr. McNamara: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Perhaps he will allow me first to answer this point.
Unfortunately, that did not prove to be the case. I shall now give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hind: Does the hon. Member not agree that during the course of their evidence to the Committee the witnesses from the Ministry of Defence said that there had been an active campaign by the IRA in Northern Ireland against Catholic members of the UDR when it had first been set up, and that there had been a large number of killings of Catholic members, which had effectively reduced, through fear, the proportion of Catholic members of the UDR to the present 2 per cent. or so?

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making what were going to be parts of my speech. I am not seeking to disguise or glorify the role of the IRA, nor to gloss over the terrible way in which it has treated members of the UDR. Nor am I trying to minimise the casualties suffered by the UDR. That is not my role in this particular debate. My role is to try to find a way in which the minority community can feel some sense of support for the UDR.
There have been complaints about the conduct of the UDR and many individual members of it. I have not cited the examples given in this letter that I have here, because I did not want to inflame the situation, but these are complaints which have been made and which, in the first two cases, at any rate, have not been followed up. It is true to say that the UDR is seen by the minority community not to be an impartial enforcer of law and order, acting in support of the RUC and engaged in the pursuit of terrorists but, in many cases, to he harassing people, bringing weight to bear on them, making life difficult for people because they happen to have different political or religious views from the majority of the members of the UDR.
That may be regrettable. It may be that, because of pressure brought by the IRA, there are not as many Catholics in the regiment as the Government might wish. But it does not alter the fact of the present situation, that the UDR is seen by the majority of the people who voted for the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh as a force of oppression which has nothing particularly to do with suppressing terrorism but has more to do with keeping in its place a section of the community which does not accept the present status of the six counties of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. It is seen as an oppressive force.
People are dissatisfied because they have no confidence in the present system of presenting and dealing with grievances. People do not believe that the complaints are followed through: unless there is a concrete criminal charge, the RUC do not take the complaints very seriously. People feel little confidence in the discipline enforced in the UDR, because of the things that happen in their day-to-day lives.
That is why I am concerned about this. That is why I bring forward this new clause. It should he possible to create a new category of offence to cover the actions of members of Her Majesty's forces who criticise or harass anyone or who act in a way which challenges legitimate political and religious beliefs. A person's religion, race or politics is no business of any United Kingdom regiment. That members of the UDR use their status as members of the regiment to abuse people and to belittle them, or use the authority of the Queen's uniform or, as an hon. Member put it on another occasion, the Queen's cap badge, to oppress people is not something that any Member of the House would wish to see, let alone support.
Here, therefore, is an opportunity to show what we think of such actions by accepting new clause 5 and having it put into operation coherently, not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom and wherever British armed forces are stationed, to ensure that members of those armed forces show a proper respect for individuals.

Sir Antony Buck: All hon. Members will agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). However, many of us wonder whether his new clause will assist the objectives which he outlined. I do not wish to be the pedantic lawyer, but how cart the hon. Gentleman sustain the idea that there should be an offence of holding someone in contempt? How could the hon. Gentleman know whether I hold him in contempt? I do not, since he and I have been on many service visits together, and I hope that any court of law and the House would accept what I say. But how can one suggest that that would be appropriate to put before a judicial tribunal? That is the flaw in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The introduction of such a concept could be counter-productive because it would cause uncertainty. It is so vague as not to be a justifiable issue.
I entirely agree with most of the hon. Gentleman's sentiments about the need for a lack of discrimination, but the House must recognise its limitations. We cannot legislate to make people good, happy or indiscriminate, and although the new clause is well-meaning, it would be counter-productive. Although the intention of the new clause is correct, it would go against the admirable sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hind: I support the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck). The clause is a statement of intent with which most members of the Committee would agree. Its major problem is that it is so broad that enforcement would be difficult. As a lawyer, I know that where the law is incapable of enforcement, it is brought into disrepute. One consequence is the crumbling of any code of discipline, whether for the armed forces or for civilian life. For that reason, I ask my colleagues to think carefully before introducing the new clause into the Bill.
The issue is the Ulster Defence Regiment. As a member of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, I should say that the question whether the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) should give evidence to the Committee was one of the most difficult that we faced. The Committee was constantly aware that it was supporting a democrat in difficult circumstances. I hope that hon. Members understand that we are aware of the difficulties under which Seamus Mallon came to the House.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Hind: I apologise; I should have said the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). We wanted to support a democrat who supported the process of constitutional change as opposed to violence. But our remit from the House, which was to consider the Armed Forces Bill, meant that it was outside our consideration. We would have been faced with examining the behaviour of every regiment, every section and every unit in the British Army if we had embarked on that course of action. It was an appropriate matter to be considered elsewheere, but not by the Select Committee.

Mr. Wallace: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Committee was advised that certain matters dealt with in the memorandum of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) would fall properly within its terms of reference? Many features of the Ulster Defence Regiment make it unique in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the argument of the hon. Gentleman that the Select Committee would have had to consider every other regiment is fallacious. Can the hon. Gentleman give the rebuttal which two of his hon. Friends have already given that he was not briefed by the Northern Ireland Office on whether the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh should give evidence? Certainly I was not, but I wondered whether the briefing was available only to Government supporters.

Mr. Hind: I had no specific briefing from the Northern Ireland Office. I was made aware by a third party of the view of the Northern Ireland Office. That was anecdotal, but I never received a briefing. In such circumstances I take cognisance of what I am told and the sense of the advice that I receive.
The point has been made that the Select Committee had to consider the discipline code of the British armed forces. The memorandum of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was connected much more with the role of that unit as a part of the British Army than with the actual discipline of that regiment. We were being asked to consider not whether the UDR should behave in a particular way but, more fundamentally, whether the UDR

should be in existence in Northern Ireland and whether it should be carrying out its present role. That was entirely different from what has been raised here.
I emphasise that the Select Committee made a difficult decision because it realised that that was the course it should take within its remit. There are ways in which the matter could be considered but it is not by the vehicle of new clause 5.

Mr. Stanley: When the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) tabled the new clause I anticipated that he would wish to devote much of what he wanted to say to the Ulster Defence Regiment. As he has tabled the clause in a much wider context on the general question of discrimination I want to take the opportunity of the debate to make it clear that discrimination on grounds of race, religion, colour or any other grounds by members of any regiment or service of the armed forces in their dealings with other service men or with the public would not be tolerated and would be viewed extremely seriously. It is my view from what I have seen of the services—and I have been privileged to see a lot of them over the past three years—that they would find it absolutely abhorrent to be a party to discrimination in any of the forms to which I have referred.
Service law already contains a number of offences under which racial or religious discrimination would be an offence. For example, any conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline is an offence and any act of racial or religious discrimination would fall within the ambit of that offence.
More specifically, anyone subject to service law who uses threatening, abusive, insulting or provocative words or behaviour likely to cause a disturbance commits an offence.
I should also point out that the code of practice for the treatment and questioning of persons by the service police under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which came into effect on 1 March this year, contains this paragraph:
Discriminatory behaviour on the grounds of a person's ethnic or natonal origin may render a Service policeman, like any other member of the Armed Forces, liable to disciplinary action.
Finally, I should make it clear that the Race Relations Act applies to service in the Armed Forces.
Given all the safeguards against discrimination that I have outlined and which already exist in both service and civilian law, I do not consider that the new clause proposed would add usefully to the prevention of discrimination in the Armed Forces.
Turning to the specific issue which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has raised, one has of course become familiar with his perception of the UDR. I believe that he is profoundly and, I find, sadly mistaken in his perception of the UDR. I am in no doubt whatever that the UDR is an admirable group of men and women. Of course, one can always find exceptions and one knows that there have been some individual cases in which people have behaved in a way which has led to serious criminal prosecutions. I do not deny that for a moment and I am saddened by and deplore that as much as the hon. Gentleman does. But it is quite wrong to generalise in relation to the whole regiment on the basis of those very limited, exceptional and deplorable cases.
The UDR as a whole does its job in a totally non-sectarian way, as indeed does the RUC. They are there to


support the civil power, to maintain law and order and to do their utmost against the awful pressure of terrorism or attempts at terrorism with which they live night and day.
I would hope that hon. Members on all sides of the Committee would recognise the enormous risks that people run simply by becoming members of the UDR. Those risks are well reflected in the casualty figures. More than 150 members of the UDR, including some women, have been killed as a result of terrorist violence over the years since the recent troubles began. More than 300 members of the UDR have suffered serious injuries. They have suffered thus trying to make a vital contribution to maintaining law and order in the Province and dealing with the very serious terrorist threat which they face.
I hope that we shall end the debate on this new clause with a real degree of unanimity in the Committee that the members of the UDR, both men and women, really deserve the highest admiration of the House.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Would my right hon. Friend accept from me, for the sake of the record, as another member of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, that I was not approached by any Minister of the Northern Ireland Office on this or any other matter?

Mr. McNamara: I am sorry that the Minister took the attitude that he did to what I had to say, because I sought to choose my words very carefully indeed. I am very conscious that, for example, this week another member of the UDR was killed by terrorists. I am aware that many of these men and women think that they are playing a proper role for themselves and for the Province in which they live. I happen to think that this is wrong, but I believe that they are, by and large, honourable people. However, to the minority population they are seen as much as a cause of the problem as the problem itself. That is the point at issue. I believe that many of Her Majesty's subjects living in Northern Ireland have that perception of the UDR, regrettable as that may be.

Sir Antony Buck: rose—

Mr. McNamara: I will not give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Time is precious, and I merely want to answer the points made.
In putting forward this new clause, we were conscious of trying to find some way in which we could make the UDR, like all other British regiments, subject to the same regulations. Nevertheless, we wanted to throw out a signal that, in the light of the Anglo-Irish Accord, there would be some hope of this result. The Minister, all other hon. Members and I know what a stumbling block at times the very existence of this regiment was in seeking to find some kind of agreement. The Committee knows that special regulations were issued after the accord was signed to try to allay some of the fear and suspicion in the minority community.
Despite what the Minister has said, this is an opportunity for us to show, by this clause, the attitude of this Committee to any conduct of the sort described by the Minister, conduct we all abhor. To those pedants amongst the lawyers in the Conservative Party, if members of the other place are not happy about the wording of the clause they can change it. To me, the wording is no worse than that in the Army regulations which the Minister praised and said rendered the clause unnecessary: he said that wording was merely repetitious and repeating what was

already there. Let us make it clear, precise and accurate that in no regiment of the British Army can this sort of conduct be tolerated. This clause would signal that intention to the people of Northern Ireland.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) said in his speech that he had spoken to a third party. He did not say that that party was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office.

Mr. McNamara: I know that. I was therefore going to conclude by saying that it was interesting to hear what the hon. Member for Lancashire, West said; his words were chosen with great care. The Committee took on board what he said. He did not contradict his right hon. and hon. Friends, but he pointed out that it had been suggested to him—and perhaps this was through the usual channel, who knows—that it might not have been helpful to call the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). That is a nice way of saying that this was said to him, that he was subject to some pressure or that he at least listened to the argument. He listened and voted as he did.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 33, Noes 98

Division No. 138]
[11.53 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Loyden, Edward


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bermingham, Gerald
McNamara, Kevin


Clay, Robert
Maxton, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Michie, William


Craigen, J. M.
Nellist, David


Dalyell, Tam
Parry, Robert


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Patchett, Terry


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Penhaligon, David


Foster, Derek
Pike, Peter


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Godman, Dr Norman
Redmond, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wallace, James


Howells, Geraint



Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Livsey, Richard
Mr. John McWilliam


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Amess, David
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Ashby, David
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fallon, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Favell, Anthony


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Freeman, Roger


Blackburn, John
Galley, Roy


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brinton, Tim
Ground, Patrick


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hawksley, Warren


Cash, William
Hayes, J.


Chope, Christopher
Henderson, Barry


Conway, Derek
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Simon
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cope, John
Holt, Richard


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Dunn, Robert
Hubbard-Miles, Peter






Jackson, Robert
Speed, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Spencer, Derek


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stanbrook, Ivor


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Stern, Michael


Lang, Ian
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lilley, Peter
Sumberg, David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Major, John
Thurnham, Peter


Mather, Carol
Tracey, Richard


Merchant, Piers
Viggers, Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Walden, George


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Michael
Watts, John


Pollock, Alexander
Whitfield, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wilkinson, John


Powley, John
Wolfson, Mark


Raffan, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Roe, Mrs Marion



Sackville, Hon Thomas
Tellers for the Noes:


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Mr. Gerald Malone and


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. Francis Maude.


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedules I and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time. — [Mr. Stanley.][Queen's Consent signified.]

12 midnight

Mr. McNamara: I should like to take a little longer on Third Reading than the Minister. You will have seen, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the reasoned amendment on the Order Paper tabled by the Opposition. It was not called and I do not quarrel with that in any way. However, it embodies a feeling of the utmost resentment on the part of Opposition Members of the Committee at the way in which we feel we have been treated. We did not expect, as the minority, to carry the day or to have equal determination but we did feel that opportunities should be given for evidence to be heard and cases examined.
The Chairman of the Select Committee ruled some matters out of order, although we felt that they were within the purview of the Bill. Those matters had been allowed on Second Reading. The Chairman's action implied criticism of Mr. Speaker. We were not allowed to discuss section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which was a matter of considerable concern to Members on both sides of the Committee.
As the Committee proceeded we found that our line of questioning was being interrupted and decisions were being taken. My hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and myself felt that we were unable to continue our line of questioning. We were stopped, not on the grounds that we were going outside the realms of the Bill, but on the strange grounds that somehow or other the Ministry of Defence should not have to explain its attitudes on matters which were before the Committee.
We reached the surprising situation in which the guillotine motion was moved by the parliamentary private secretary to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) to prevent the

Committee from sitting when the Calcutt inquiry report was produced. We now know that Mr. Calcutt delivered his report to the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday, the same day that the report of the Select Committee came out. The Government had so much respect for the integrity of the House and for its abilities that they gave the house less than 24 hours in which to read perhaps the most substantial report ever to come from the Select Committee.
We had 24 hours in which to table amendments. This is not the way that Governments should treat Oppositions. This is not the way to maintain goodwill. They are trampling over the rights of the Opposition. We are not asking to have our own way but to have the opportunity to hear evidence. The Minister has said that we had an opportunity to hear evidence on homosexuality.
We heard much evidence from the Ministry and its officials. We had written evidence, but we were denied the right to call the Campaign for Homosexual Equality and denied the right to hear evidence from the Conservative group on homosexual reform. We were denied the evidence from these two groups and from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and Mr. Calcutt.
In the past I have had the privilege of being a member of a Select Committee under several distinguished Conservative Chairmen.
I have had the privilege of being a Chairman of a Select Committee. In all my experience I have never known of Members not being allowed to hear evidence. I have never known the Chairman of the majority party on the Committee state that the Committee will not call a person who wants to give evidence.
To move a guillotine in such a way was despicable. It was a most unhappy Committee upon which to serve. I regret it very much. In five years' time, when we are in Government, I hope that we will have more grace and more favour and more support. The election result at Fulham tonight will make sure of that.

Mr. Viggers: In view of the comments that have been made about the Committee of which I was the chairman, I think it is right that the record should be put straight.
The Second Reading of the Bill was on 21 November 1985 and the Select Committee had its first sitting on 19 December 1985. There were full sittings from 15 January to 24 March— a period of two months and 10 days. Early during the Committee's proceedings the members discussed broadly the timing of the investigation, and agreed to seek to complete deliberations by Easter, subject to the Calcutt report which remained to be discussed later.
On 19 February at the seventh sitting my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) moved that the Committee should complete its deliberations by Easter. At that time there was more than a month to Easter and no limit on the number of sittings that the Committee could have. He sought to firm up the programme for the Committee without putting a guillotine on the debate, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) implied. He sought to set a timetable which is completely different. On 17 March at the tenth sitting the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) proposed that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) should attend the Committee and give oral evidence.
When first I heard that an hon. Member wished to give evidence to a Select Committee, I thought that we should


yield to that request. The hon. Gentleman was asked to submit a written memorandum, giving his views and reasons why he wished to give oral evidence. He did and it is duly published in our report. When I saw his written representation I had to form the view that it was not the work of the Select Committee to hear those representations or to investigate that subject. The hon. Gentleman's memorandum states in paragraph 31 on page 259:
It is recognised that I have a critical view of the UDR and I would now like an opportunity to make my case on that issue, on behalf of the people who elected me to do just that.
The Ministry of Defence answered that point in its memorandum in response to that of the hon. Gentleman, in paragraphs 6 and 9 on page 264, where it states:
The UDR is subject, like the rest of the Army, to the disciplinary provisions of the Army Act 1955 and to the Queens Regulations; additionally, they are subject to the UDR Regulations. They are also, like all other Servicemen in the United Kingdom, subject to the ordinary criminal law …
The Army is well aware of some of the problems that can arise from contact between soldiers and the public in the difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland. There is, therefore, a well established procedure which members of the public can use if they feel that there is a reason to complain about the behaviour of any soldier.
The memorandum from the hon. Gentleman contained several specific allegations which could have been referred to Army disciplinary procedures, and some general points which were riot appropriate for the Committee to pursue. The truth is that Opposition Members were seeking to use the wrong vehicle to pursue their special concern.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that in moving that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) be heard, I simply said that the purpose of the hearing was to test the quality and extent of the evidence, and that judgment should not be made until that test had been carried out? Does he not agree that that seemed perfectly fair and proper?

Mr. Viggers: If the Committee, following its tenth session, had listened to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh on the subject of the representations that he wished to make, it would have had no alternative but to balance that view with others, and would have plunged itself into an inquiry way beyond its function and duty. It was inappropriate for the Committee to investigate that subject.
As a result of the vote in the Committee, in which I did not take part, Opposition Members chose to boycott our eleventh sitting when the Bill was debated in detail and amendments could have been tabled. On 24 March at the twelfth sitting they produced amendments, but refused to speak to them, despite that fact that I pointed out that if they spoke in support of the amendments, they might be supported by Conservative Members. However, they chose not to do that. I suggested to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who I thought was submitting some very sensible and intelligent points, that if he wished to speak in support of his amendments, the Committee might be interested. He chose not to support those amendments.

Dr. Godman: Rubbish.

Mr. Viggers: The eleventh and twelfth sittings, on 19 March, were the occasions when the Committee should have amended the Bill and amended the Chairman's report, which subsequently became the Committee's report. By boycotting those sittings, the hon. Gentlemen and their party did themselves no service.
The evidence that we took—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have exercised a great deal of tolerance, because I can understand that there are resentments arising from the Committee's proceedings that hon. Members want to express in the Chamber. However, it would be most regrettable—I do not think that I can allow it to happen—for the Third Reading debate to be a prolonged and acrimonious inquiry into what went on in Committee. I hope that we can now return to the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There has been an attack upon the personalities of the Opposition Members who were members of the Committee, and the steps that they took. Surely they have a right to reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members have a right to seek to catch my eye and to speak within the normal confines of debate on Third Reading.

Mr. Bermingham: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that the Chairman of a Select Committee is meant to chair the Committee? It is not for the Chairman to attempt to direct and control he majority party upon that Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for me to rule on the conduct of members or Chairmen of Committees.

Mr. Viggers: The point of my remarks is to establish that the Committee has given proper consideration to the Bill and that it should therefore have a Third Reading. I submit that my remarks must be in order, in view of the comments and direct criticisms that have been made about my chairmanship of the Committee.

Mr. John McWilliam: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to me, on perusal of the standing orders, that the Chairman of a Select Committee does not have power to accept a guillotine or closure motion in the way that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot now enter into a discussion about what happened or did not happen within a certain Committee. Those are not matters for me. We must return to the debate on Third Reading. I call Mr. Viggers.

Mr. Viggers: rose—

Mr. McWilliam: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It does not seem to me to be in order for the House to finish consideration of a Bill which was considered by a Select Committee and improperly guillotined by that Select Committee. The House does not then have the opportunity properly to consider the full report that that Committee might have made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already told the hon. Gentleman and the House that what went on in the Committee is not a matter for me. I cannot rule upon that.

Mr. Viggers: One specific allegation made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was that I as Chairman prevented the Committee from discussing section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act. There was an allegation that I went against the indication of Mr. Speaker because that point had been discussed on Second Reading. In view of that specific allegation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman continues along that line I shall have no option but to allow


all kinds of arguments to be put forward from all parts of the House in rebuttal of what he says. I am not prepared to allow that. We must return to Third Reading. On Third Reading, it is for the House to debate what is in the Bill. I hope that that is what we will do, and reach a conclusion on Third Reading.

Mr. Viggers: On the Third Reading of the Bill, we will notice that there is no reference to section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act, and that is because I as Chairman was given the specific advice that that was outside the scope—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing what I have told him twice he may not do. We cannot now have a prolonged inquest on what went on in the Committee. We must confine our remarks to what is in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will either do so or resume his seat.

Mr. Viggers: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Select Committee had several purposes, one of which was to produce the Bill. We are now debating the Third Reading of a Bill which includes matters relating to the rights of the accused, children at risk, new technology and the powers of military courts. Important points have been raised on all of those matters. I am proud of the Bill, and I am proud of the Select Committee. The Committee has carried out vital work and it is important that the Bill, which I hope will receive a Third Reading in a few minutes, will merit as much consideration as the Armed Forces Act 1981 about which the Select Committee stated in its conclusions:
We note that the Ministry of Defence has in every case modified the rules of service discipline as recommended.
I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that the Bill receives its Third Reading.

Mr. Wallace: I will bear in mind the ruling that you have already made, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about this being a Third Reading debate, although I note of course that there is a difference of opinion on that point between the Labour Opposition and the Government. I shared the frustration felt by the Opposition that the Select Committee which at the beginning had promise, did not grapple with some of the problems that hon. Members had hoped would be considered. For example, the problems contained in clause 2 of the Bill relating to the offence of interfering with equipment, messages or signals. I recall on Second Reading that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) suggested at some length that perhaps there were provisions in clause 2 that could have been used—if the Bill were an Act— instead of the charges that were brought in the so-called Cyprus secrets trials do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but that point was worthy of further investigation.
Clause 2 comes before us now without the House having focused on the matter or having an opportunity to consider the outcome of the relevant parts of the Calcutt inquiry report. It was the Government's view that the Select Committee should report without the opportunity of discussing the Calcutt report. Those hon. Members who took part in the Second reading debate will recall that the

Calcutt inquiry and the circumstances leading to that inquiry were referred to by nearly all the hon. Members who spoke. Unfortunately, the Select Committee was not allowed to have the benefit of the findings of that report and was not allowed to consider it.
Hon. Members reading the various parts of the Bill, not least clauses 2 and 3, will, as happens in many statutes, find some difficulty in understanding the complicated language. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) tabled an amendment to the Select Committee report asking that leaflets should always be written in good, plain English. Such was the division on party lines that that amendment was rejected, it is not surprising, therefore, that complicated language exists in statutes.
Within the confines of Third Reading, I would like to express the frustration of the alliance, over the loss of this opportunity, which comes round only every five years properly to review the discipline procedures of the armed services. The Select Committee was also frustrated in that aim. Nevertheless, the Bill as it stands, despite the reservation I have already expressed on clause 11, will improve the service discipline Acts. The alliance will support the Bill, although we do not necessarily support all the procedures it contains.

Mr. Bermingham: I do not seek to trespass outside the remit of the Third Reading. The main issue is whether we can support the Bill. The tragedy of the Bill has been the way in which we have reached this position.
Bearing in mind all the points of order that we have had tonight and the rulings upon them, suffice it to say that I make no apologies for looking at the Bill now as a wasted opportunity. Those of us who spoke on Second Reading had thoughts, perhaps dreams, that we might have something to contribute to the argument. Fair enough. That is how democracy works. The conceit in the Bill—I put it as bluntly as that— has been the steam-roller tactics that have been applied to it.
At the end of the day we do not have the best result. It is against that background that I shall seek, if no one else does, to divide the House. Every hon. Member has a duty which transcends on occasions party affiliations, and that is to the House, to the country, and, above all, to democracy.
Of course, evidence was taken. On occasions questions were asked of witnesses. We cannot on Third Reading consider how those question sessions occurred, but we can at least say that if at the end of day one is to have a fair result, those who seek to ask questions should on occasions be allowed to do so. No one—I say that with the greatest respect for the Minister—has a monopoly of wisdom on either side of the House.
Yes, sometimes the Opposition are difficult because they ask questions and want to debate and change a little bit here and a little bit there. Of course, in a democracy it is not just the right to speak that is important, but the right to be heard. The tragedy of the Bill is that many voices have not been heard.
Yes, we have done things in certain ways for centuries. But why should we not have the right in 1986 to question, perhaps sometimes in a way that is inconvenient to Government? If we in Britain are ever denied that right, we do not have a democracy but the roll-over, tank-like dictatorship that we criticise so much elsewhere.
I notice that the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) laughs, but I warn the hon. Gentleman that there comes a time when sides change and one becomes Opposition rather than Government. When one finds oneself in that position, arrogance should go and reason should reign, because in that position one wants to make one's voice heard. People have, on occasions, to believe that they may have something to contribute to a debate.
I revert to where I began towards the end of last year. Clause 2 is about criminal damage and interfering with radio sets and other matters such as those which lay at the heart of the Cyprus inquiry. If my memory serves me correctly, I suggested on Second Reading that the drafting of that clause was open to some worry because it could have meant that people prosecuted under it could come before a court martial rather than an old Bailey jury. I believe that I asked whether the result of a court martial would be the same as a trial before an Old Bailey jury.
I gather from what I later read that people were wondering whether I was being critical of courts martial. Those who did not read all my remarks failed to realise that my question was whether, after the Bill had completed its passage through the House, we could be certain that the quality of justice before courts martial would be the same as the quality of justice at the Old Bailey or any other Crown court in the UK.
If the answer to that question is yes, we shall have achieved something. If it is that we cannot be sure, we shall have failed. That is why I spoke in the way I did in that debate and hoped to be selected, and was selected, to serve on the Special Select Committee.
The tragedy is that at the end of all our deliberations—and I make no apology for reaching a point of frustration when I walked out—I cannot say, as we leave the Bill, that the dream I had when the measure commenced its passage has been fulfilled. One can ask Ministry officials a thousand and one questions, but it requires the will of hon. Members, and sometimes their willingness to accept the ideas of others, to create legislation that gives rise to a system that is just and fair. I oppose the Bill now with considerable reluctance because I fear that we have not created a system that is fair.

Mr. Stanley: I am happy to commend the Bill for its Third Reading. The measure was thoroughly prepared in the Department before being brought before the House, having had a five-year gestation period. It was thoroughly studied in Committee, having occupied nearly twice as many sittings as the Bill that was before the 1981 Select Committee.
I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) speak about the Committee proceedings in the way he did. I cannot recall serving on a Select Committee when in Opposition when I was able virtually entirely to dictate the agenda of the Committee in the way in which that hon. Member did, or was able to dominate the verbal proceedings of the Committee in the way in which he and his hon. Friends were able to do.
The Select Committee was admirably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). He conducted our proceedings with commendable efficiency. He showed unfailing courtesy to hon. Members on both sides, irrespective of party, giving every possible opportunity for them to put questions.
The Committee made some important recommendations for the future. They will all be studied carefully, as happened with the recommendations of the 1981 Committee, and each will be the subject of a considered response by the Government.
The Bill as it now appears before the House will meet the needs of the services and will, I am sure, have their confidence.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 23.

Division No. 139]
[12.31 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Alton, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Amess, David
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Ashby, David
Lang, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Batiste, Spencer
Lilley, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Livsey, Richard


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Blackburn, John
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Bottomley, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Major, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Mather, Carol


Brinton, Tim
Merchant, Piers


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Buck, Sir Antony
Neubert, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Penhaligon, David


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Pollock, Alexander


Cash, William
Powell, William (Corby)


Chope, Christopher
Powley, John


Conway, Derek
Raffan, Keith


Cope, John
Roe, Mrs Marion


Couchman, James
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Dunn, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Durant, Tony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Speed, Keith


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Spencer, Derek


Fallon, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Forth, Eric
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Roger
Stern, Michael


Galley, Roy
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Gregory, Conal
Sumberg, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Ground, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Thurnham, Peter


Hampson, Dr Keith
Tracey, Richard


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Viggers, Peter


Hawksley, Warren
Walden, George


Hayes, J.
Wallace, James


Henderson, Barry
Waller, Gary


Hind, Kenneth
Watts, John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Whitfield, John


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Wilkinson, John


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Wolfson, Mark


Howells, Geraint
Wood, Timothy


Hubbard-Miles, Peter



Jackson, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jessel, Toby
Mr. Gerald Malone and


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mr. Frances Maude




NOES


Bermingham, Gerald
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clay, Robert
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Edward


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
McNamara, Kevin


Foster, Derek
Maxton, John


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Michie, William


Godman, Dr Norman
Nellist, David






Parry, Robert



Pike, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. John McWilliam and


Redmond, Martin
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Schools (Brent)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. Reg Freeson: Brent schools are in crisis. This has been developing for years, but some schools are verging on breakdown. Teacher morale is sinking, partly because of the Government's pay policy but due also to political factions interfering in school administration and the abuse of so-called "anti-racism" in appointments and curricula. Parents are placing more than 20 per cent. of our children in schools outside the borough. Educational standards for more than 40 per cent. of our pupils are inadequate because of lack and loss of good staff and a failure to reorganise secondary schools, further education and training along comprehensive tertiary college lines.
In this short debate, I wish to deal with the physical conditions in which our pupils and teachers must work. They are a disgrace and they demand Government action. Infant schools, junior schools, secondary schools, colleges, special schools for handicapped youngsters, youth service and training school buildings are all at risk. The present decline in property maintenance and refurbishment is the cumulative effect of years of neglect even when Governments gave much more finance than they do now. But today it is so serious that soon part of the education service will have to close.
Council officers have drawn up a report on the condition of educational buildings which makes depressing and alarming reading. Some schools could be forced to close unless millions of pounds are found to repair them. This has already happened in two schools recently. Whole roofs and windows started to collapse. Only then was emergency action taken. Hundreds of infants and junior school children were evacuated to surplus secondary school rooms for months while urgent repairs were carried out.
More than £6·5 million worth of urgent work is needed in Brent schools. This includes re-roofing, mechanical and electrical repairs, replacing central heating and essential redecoration work. More than £ 1 million is needed for urgent roof replacements alone, yet present funds allow for only patching leaking roofs. Almost £2·5 million is needed for external and internal redecoration. Many schools have not been repainted for 15 to 20 years. In the condition of floors, windows, kitchens, wiring circuits and heating, the local education authority is in breach of the health and safety at work regulations. That is an important point. Government authority for capital spending and council revenue, backed by Government rate support grant, is not available to rectify this matter. So the law is broken, and our teachers, children and others are put at risk physically as well as educationally.
For years, I have expressed concern at the lack of planned maintenance in Brent— a problem that exists across the country. Even when Government support was far more than it is now, this was absent. When it should have been essential to good management, it was given low priority or none. Thus, essential work has always suffered first as resources were squeezed. In recent years, even less money has gone into maintenance in relation to need. This year, Brent has a budget of just more than £1 million. Remember the £6·5 million needed for urgent work. This


year we have £ 1 million against the need for £6·5 million for urgent, essential work. I stress that it is essential, not just desirable.
A list of schools has been drawn up which could face closure unless major repairs are done. It includes primary schools, such as Bridge, Uxendon Manor, Barham, Lyon Park, Malorees and Sudbury, and secondary schools such as Claremont, John Kelly boys and John Kelly girls schools, Kingsbury, Sladebrook and Neasden. There are no funds for further and adult education colleges, toddlers' clubs and other children's facilities.
The minimum budget required for primary schools has been estimated at £325,000, yet only 15 per cent., or £48,000, is available. Similarly with secondary schools; just over £0·5 million is the minimum need, but only 15 per cent., or £75,000, is available. Much of the Kilburn polytechnic accommodation is substandard. The central block of the Willesden college of technology has already had to be closed while whole departments have to move indefinitely into temporary buildings which themselves will be very costly to maintain.
I could go on with more and more examples, but I have made my point. The resources available are inadequate for the needs identified. Not to recognise this and to act on it is a dereliction of duty. There is also general deterioration in Brent schools which has serious consequences for the future of education. It is wrong that staff and pupils should be forced to work in such poor, degrading conditions.
I have mentioned only the immediate problems. From what I have seen, I believe that the situation is even worse than has been reported. Apart from essential maintenance and repairs, there is a need for more general redecoration, refurbishment, new fixtures, fittings and re-equipment. Failure to meet that need now will mean that what is already a crisis will soon turn to disaster.
I have been driven to seek this Adjournment debate because of the inadequate responses to my pleas for more resources which I have so far had from the Secretary of State for Education and his Ministers. Instead of addressing the real problems and facing up to them, the Department has sent me generalised replies. I have been told:
Much more could be done to improve the planning and management of repair and maintenance work.
I agree. I quote again:
the Department … has published guidelines for determining maintenance priorities in the local authority sector and for setting up cost-effective maintenance programmes.
Fine.
But the Government cannot of course direct local authorities how to spend their money.
Of course not.
It is for each individual authority to decide its own priorities in the light of its assessment of local needs and circumstances.
In Brent's case the needs and the priorities have been identified. What Education Ministers have failed to answer is the fact that there are just not enough resources made available to tackle the urgent, essential needs which have been identified. This is the Government's responsibility. They control capital expenditure and also in large part rate and revenue spending. In other words, Ministers have never addressed the specific problems that I have put to them. In sum, these show an urgent need for much more capital expenditure to put educational buildings into a decent condition, and more revenue spending through the rates and the rate support grant for

planned maintenance consistently for a number of years. Without that, the general advice received, which I have quoted, cannot possibly meet the case.
A committed policy by Brent for planned maintenance must be supported by properly programmed resources over several years by Government as well as council. Capital and revenue investment must be firm over a period. Generalised replies from Ministers are just not good enough. Nor is the failure by councillors to redirect money to this priority area. The real problems must be addressed and Brent's educational buildings given the resources they so desperately need.
The director of education and the director of works have identified and programmed essential works urgently required. I keep repeating the words "urgent" and "essential" and I mean them literally; they are not just being used for rhetorical purposes. They have made their report. What I plead for is joint action now by Government and council. Our pupils and our teachers cannot wait any longer. Many of the buildings will literally have to be closed. What do we do then, without the capital resources that I am pleading with the Minister, together with the council, to consider introducing into what is, after all, largely an inner-city area, about which so much is said by the Government and others but about which so little seems to be being done, at least in this field.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I noted with interest comments of the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) and his realistic interpretation of historical events over many years. He will know, as I do, that the position that he has outlined tonight is essentially still, as it has been in the past, the result of a conflict between the cash allocation made by Governments of all parties and the establishment of local priorities. He was honest enough, and I give him fair and just credit for that, to admit that this problem has not just arisen but has been building up over a period of many years.
Before I turn to the particular problems of the London borough of Brent, I want to make it quite clear to the House that the Government have said on numerous occasions that their view is that local authorities should give priority to spending on the repair and maintenance of school buildings. More than that, there is scope for increased spending in this area, and that has been built into successive rate support grant settlements. Local authorities' own expenditure returns have shown that in real terms the rate of growth in spending on the repair and maintenance of the educational building stock has been considerable.
If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, and I know that he will be patient, I would like to make one or two comments for wider consumption than those on the particular interests he expressed tonight.
The House will know that between 1981–82 and 1984–85 spending nationally on the repair and maintenance of school buildings increased by some 13 per cent. Brent's own spending on primary and secondary school repairs and maintenance in 1984–85 was almost twice what it had been in 1981–82. In fact it showed an increase of 91 per cent. over the 1981–82 level. The year 1984–85 is the latest for which detailed expenditure data are available, but in their plans for local authority spending in both 1985–86 and, more recently, 1986–87, as set out in the


1986 public expenditure White Paper, the Government have allowed scope for authorities to continue to give some priority to repairs and maintenance provided they can contain costs generally and make efficiency savings whenever possible. Of course, it is for each local authority to determine its own priorities and it is not for Ministers to tell them how to spend their money.
Nevertheless, we are concerned about the physical state of some of the country's schools and we take very seriously the findings of Her Majesty's Inspectors and others that some schools are in a very poor state of repair. Indeed, in my own visits to local authorities up and down the country I have seen examples of such schools. I have no doubt that examples exist in the London borough of Brent.
I am aware also that many people, entirely understandably, would like to see more money made available to local authorities for capital building work and for repairs and maintenance. However, this wish needs to be balanced against what the country as a whole can afford and taken in the context of the Government's overall policy of constraining public expenditure in order to further reduce inflation and secure the sustained economic recovery which we would all like to see and on which all our public services depend.
The resources which are available for education depend on many factors, including the demands made by other services. For example, those services concerned with the elderly have demography on their side, whereas education, where pupil numbers fell by about 13 per cent. from 1980 to 1985, cannot reasonably be exempt from the overall policy of restraint. Nevertheless, despite falling numbers, spending on education has risen slightly in real terms. As the figures I gave earlier show, spending on repairs and maintenance has shown a substantial. rise.
However, it is not only the amount of money that is spent that is important. How and where it is spent is equally crucial. It is for that reason, as I said before, that we look to authorities to make savings wherever possible. Poor management — the right hon. Member rightly referred to this—tends to result in money being spent where it is not needed. Such money is wasted. Audit Commission studies have shown where money might be saved, notably in areas such as caretaking and cleaning, and money saved here could clearly be spent on more important items such as repairing and maintaining school buildings—an investment which would be directly to the benefit of both pupils and teachers.
It is also worth saying that in many cases the decline in the state of the educational building stock has not come about suddenly. I note the right hon. Gentleman's realistic comments. Rather, it has been a gradual decline, brought about as a result of inadequate spending on repairs and maintenance over many years. What authorities often lack —this is the case, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in the London borough of Brent—is a planned programme of maintenance for their school buildings. In order to carry out the complex task of managing their building stock with maximum efficiency, local authorities need adequate information about their educational building stock and objective methods for assessing maintenance needs and determining priorities.
I turn now to capital expenditure generally and as it affects the London borough of Brent. Each year the

Department invites all local education authorities to submit details of their plans for capital expenditure in their following year at the county and voluntary schools in the area. In aggregate, these plans always exceed what the country can, in our view, afford. We therefore measure each authority's bids against certain criteria to determine what allocation each should receive.
The first step is to take into account authorities' commitments on projects which are already under way. This element of the allocation will generally not exceed the provisional indication of acceptable commitments of which the authority has been notified the previous year. The next priority is to cover expenditure needed to permit authorities to meet their statutory duties to provide sufficient schools for their area and to implement proposals approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science under sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980, generally involving the removal of surplus places. All allocations have covered these items in full. The third priority is expenditure on smaller, non-statutory, projects to remove surplus places and to renovate or replace unsatisfactory or inappropriate school buildings. Allocations here are made on a basis which reflects the number of sub-standard places in each authority, as well as their planned expenditure. This sort of work is covered to the extent that the overall level of resources will permit.
Allocations for 1986–87 represent, in aggregate, 43 per cent. of local education authorities' planned capital expenditure on schools. Authorities are — this is an important point which relates to Brent — free to supplement these allocations by the use of the permitted proportion of their capital receipts and by the other flexibilities available to them under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
The allocation made to Brent was determined on that basis. On the schools side, its expected commitments for projects already under way were met in full and, so far as new work is concerned, the planned cost of enlargements to the Brentfield and Leopold schools were allowed in full also. Similarly, the capital costs of the alterations needed to Willesden high school resulting from the closure of the Pound street annex were fully taken into account. Brent's total allocation for 1986–87 is £1,589,000. This represents a rather lower percentage of their planned expenditure than the national average, but, as a percentage of the total sum allocated nationally, it corresponds fairly closely to Brent's school population as a percentage of the national total. Statistics can, of course, prove anything. What is important is that the allocations to all authorities were made by applying exactly the same criteria and priorities. Brent was not singled out in any way for exceptionally harsh treatment.
I am well aware that local education authorities would like to spend even more on capital work. However, there is a continuing need to control gross public expenditure in the fight against inflation. I have to point out also that the London borough of Brent has not helped itself in that it has done nothing about the considerable number of surplus places in its secondary schools. I appreciate that the present administration's proposals for school amalgamations were quashed in the High Court but, before then, under Labour control, no action at all was taken.
There are two further areas to which I should like to direct the attention of the House and the right hon. Gentleman, in which the authority could have had useful


scope for savings in educational expenditure—school meals and caretaking and cleaning. Because of the lateness of the hour, I shall not go into detail, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there is considerable scope for Brent to achieve substantial efficiency savings in its school meals and secondary caretaking costs. Money saved here could clearly be targeted towards genuine educational priority, such as repairs and maintenance.
These are areas in which the authority might like to help itself. But my reference to them is by no means intended to disparage the authority's overall performance. The

figures show that Brent's response to falling pupil numbers has been to reduce teacher numbers faster than the average for the outer London boroughs and the rates for England as a whole.
I have listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he fully understands the arguments we have put forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past One o'clock.